-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
TELEPATHY
ACT - 26
7 November 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
It is pretty clear that the reason we do not have telepathy is
because we have too much telepathy.
We have lost links to some because we have too many links to
others.
'Do you desire a link with someone?'
'Are you trying to enforce a link to someone?'
'Are you trying to inhibit a link to someone?'
'Are you refusing a link to someone?'
When people start to think about telepathy they immediately get
into trying to explain the MECHANISM by which a link could be made.
In variably they start thinking in terms of OUT THERENESS, like
electric wires, or radio or some such kind of thing.
They want some sort of causal emanation to go from themselves
THROUGH space and time to another.
They see a loved one dragged off by the invading army and thrown
onto a boat. The boat is leaving shore and the loved one is waving
goodbye to you crying on the stern of the ship. You are just a boy and
can not follow. You swear to find her some day. You TRY to establish a
link but can not, you try to CAST OUT your cause from where you are to
where she is but it does not work.
That is because cause is not OUT THERE. The telepathic link is
already physically in place, that is how you are sharing your little
virtual nightmare with her in the first place.
All that needs to be done is to enable the bit that says you can
communicate directly on the mental plane. If you dare.
Are you willing to have another see your pictures and feelings as
they come to you? Are you willing to see and feel other's pictures as
they come to them? What happens if you enable the telepathic bits for
everyone at once? How do you shut out some and let in others?
What happens if you enable the bits for those who are in Hell or in
pain? Can you just shut them out to find someone more pleasant to while
away the hours with?
I submit that those who can't find telepathy with those they want
are unwilling to have telepathy with those they don't want. The
compulsive OFF turns it off for everyone.
Then you are alone, in your body in your virtual nightmare, waving
good bye forever to loved ones across a distance that does not exist.
There is no world out there. Just because you SEE space does not
mean there IS space. It only means there is conscious pictures of space
which themselves do not take up space. It's a holodeck.
There is more 'holo-space' INSIDE you then you could ever find out
side you.
Exteriorization is a joke you know, its trying to get free by
getting OUT of your body. Being in this universe is as OUT as you can
get. Freedom is being able to go INWARD to bigger spaces and larger
freedoms. Once IN, YOU can even go OUT to other universes, other
virtual helmets.
Trying to escape your suffering by exteriorizing into the space and
time shown to you by your virtual helmet is a trap. Even if you could
get away from your present space and time tormentors, you would just run
into more out there. The only way OUT is IN, into where you were before
you stuck your head OUT into your virtual helmet to see this world.
Anyhow its no wonder that telepathy comes back on the OT levels,
because that is where the pc first starts addressing misownership of
attitudes, emotions, sensations and pains, goals and games, friends and
foes, Gods and Devils, Deities and Demons, ridges and masses, that he is
taking as his own. If you cross spaces with another being you will see
their pictures and frights. If you take their experiences as yours,
such as in a heavy clustering incident, you will forget that you are not
alone and start trying to deal with these things as if they were your
own. This will get you into fighting things that won't as-is and go
away because THEY AREN'T your own.
Finally the being tries to do away with all mis ownership by
turning off all telepathy, and he finally finds a silence and peace that
makes it seem like he succeeded, but it was SOMEONE ELSE'S SILENCE AND
PEACE! So he is locked in the loneliness of someone else's dream,
thinking he is being himself and that there are no others, and that he
can't communicate with others, all the while he is solidly BEING other's
and trying to communicate to the rest of the world from THEIR viewpoint,
from THEIR universe, from THEIR virtual helmet!
This loneliness was someone elses! If you WERE alone you could
never get stuck in being alone.
There never was an absence of telepathy, only too much telepathy
that was mistaken as no telepathy.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Oct 31 12:06:02 EDT 2015
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act26.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFWNObqURT1lqxE3HERAl37AJ9UPpeUb8ihEIYyMBjpvu9vtWI+vACgju/A
NqIIFMUlaXqmfSht2aT02m8=
=SY/1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Saturday, October 31, 2015
Friday, October 30, 2015
LCC0 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Rough draft... posted 7/16/2006
LEARNING, CERTAINTY, CAUSALITY AND CONSCIOUSNESS
LCCC-0
15 July 2006
Copyright (C) 2006 Homer W. Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
ABSTRACT
This paper is about the Machine Certainty Theorem (MCT) and its
possible ramifications.
The MCT states that a machine can not learn anything with
certainty.
This statement depends heavily on the definitions of machine,
learn, and certainty.
A machine is defined as any system of parts interacting via cause
and effect across a space time distance.
Learn is defined as come to know.
Certainty is defined as perfect certainty, that which can not be
wrong.
Among other things a machine can not learn with certainty whether
or not it or anything else exists, nor whether or not any effects are
caused,
This is because a machine learns by being an effect of causes, even
when it is learning about itself, and since effect does not prove cause,
a machine can never learn with certainty if cause exists merely by
studying alleged effects.
Cause and its nature forever remain a theory to a machine.
The application of the MCT is in the reverse, since consciousness
can learn with certainty a number of things, including its own existence
and personal agency (causation), one is led to conclude that
consciousness is not a machine.
The formal statement of the MCT and its application are as follows.
MACHINE CERTAINTY THEORM
(The "Proof")
Learning biconditionally implies learning with certainty or not
learning with certainty.
Distance and learning implies learning by being an effect.
Learning by being an effect implies not learning with certainty.
Learning with certainty, therefore implies Learning but,
Not by being an effect, and
Not across a space time distance.
INTRODUCTION
This work is about Learning, Certainty, Causality and Consciousness,
Specifically it is about learning with certainty about causality in
consciousness.
Historically it has been admitted that the physical sciences do not
provide certainty of truth, only high probabilities of workable
dependability. What other certainties we might profess have generally
been relegated to faith.
Note that faith and certainty are oxymorons.
Put simply, in a mechanical space time universe, causation is not
sufficient to witness causation.
Causal pathways are the propagation through space and time of cause
from a source point to an effect point.
Causal pathways can not be used to verify the theoretical integrity
of causal pathways.
"More causal pathways do not a more certain causal pathway make."
This is because in the physical universe, learning is always done
at the effect end, and the effect is blind to the source end.
So although we are depending upon cause to give us theoretically
proper effects, we can not use that causal mechanism to verify the cause
nor that cause even exists for the effect at all.
Thus we say that causation is not sufficient to witness causation,
causation is only sufficient to witness the effect.
That is, learning by being an effect is not sufficient to prove the
existence of cause, nor does learning by being an effect allow us more
than to model or theorize about the true nature of that possible cause
if it does exsit.
However there is a certainty of interest that resides between the
absolute uncertainities of the physical sciences and the world of faith.
This is the certainty of consciousness, the certainty we have that
we are conscious and that we exist, the certainty we have of what we are
conscious of, for example the color forms of the visual world around us,
the reds and the greens and other conscious experiences, and the
certainty we have of our own personal agency or causation in the world.
There is a view that consciousness is an epiphenomenom of the brain,
something arises from the brain, but is otherwise not capable of
affecting anything.
Thus the brain can cause changes in the consciousness, but
not the reverse.
If this were true, then the brain could never know there
was a consciousness, and we could never end of talking about it or
writing about it.
Remember that just because A affects B, doesn't mean that
B affects A, and if B does not affect A, then A can never learn
about B not even that B exists, no matter how much A affects B.
Thus there must be two way cause and effect going on between the
brain and consciousness, if the brain even exists. :)
Tell a conscious unit there is no cause in the world, and you have
told him he does not exist.
The search for causation in the physical universe is actually an
anthropomorphization of directly perceived causation in ourselves.
Since we can see by direct perception, and thus with perfect certainty,
that there is causation within our consciousness, we conclude that there
must be causation out there in the physical universe.
(Some may be tempted to say that our perception of personal agency
is just that, simply a perception, and it doesn't indicate the actual
existence of such a thing as cause with certainty. They are saying that
inspite of our direct perception of cause in our selves, perhaps there
still is no cause anywhere in the universe. Think about that for a
while.)
It is this perfect certainty of our own existence and agency that
makes consciousness special and leads us to some startling conclusions
about its non mechanical, non space time, nature.
The material of this paper started with the question could a
machine learn with certainty of its own existence or of anything for
that matter.
As will be developed, the answer is no, and yet as a conscious unit
we are perfectly certain we exist and are agent and thus we are forced
to conclude that we as a conscious unit are not a machine, although we
may be interfaced with one, namely the body/brain system.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Oct 30 17:14:46 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/lcc0.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFWM93GURT1lqxE3HERAodDAKCv9y1Xy16fn/gfrHXoRaRzvUTILQCeKTsz
Mdw+D3dhSRsmWIC2ZWmM1vg=
=iyPP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
Rough draft... posted 7/16/2006
LEARNING, CERTAINTY, CAUSALITY AND CONSCIOUSNESS
LCCC-0
15 July 2006
Copyright (C) 2006 Homer W. Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
ABSTRACT
This paper is about the Machine Certainty Theorem (MCT) and its
possible ramifications.
The MCT states that a machine can not learn anything with
certainty.
This statement depends heavily on the definitions of machine,
learn, and certainty.
A machine is defined as any system of parts interacting via cause
and effect across a space time distance.
Learn is defined as come to know.
Certainty is defined as perfect certainty, that which can not be
wrong.
Among other things a machine can not learn with certainty whether
or not it or anything else exists, nor whether or not any effects are
caused,
This is because a machine learns by being an effect of causes, even
when it is learning about itself, and since effect does not prove cause,
a machine can never learn with certainty if cause exists merely by
studying alleged effects.
Cause and its nature forever remain a theory to a machine.
The application of the MCT is in the reverse, since consciousness
can learn with certainty a number of things, including its own existence
and personal agency (causation), one is led to conclude that
consciousness is not a machine.
The formal statement of the MCT and its application are as follows.
MACHINE CERTAINTY THEORM
(The "Proof")
Learning biconditionally implies learning with certainty or not
learning with certainty.
Distance and learning implies learning by being an effect.
Learning by being an effect implies not learning with certainty.
Learning with certainty, therefore implies Learning but,
Not by being an effect, and
Not across a space time distance.
INTRODUCTION
This work is about Learning, Certainty, Causality and Consciousness,
Specifically it is about learning with certainty about causality in
consciousness.
Historically it has been admitted that the physical sciences do not
provide certainty of truth, only high probabilities of workable
dependability. What other certainties we might profess have generally
been relegated to faith.
Note that faith and certainty are oxymorons.
Put simply, in a mechanical space time universe, causation is not
sufficient to witness causation.
Causal pathways are the propagation through space and time of cause
from a source point to an effect point.
Causal pathways can not be used to verify the theoretical integrity
of causal pathways.
"More causal pathways do not a more certain causal pathway make."
This is because in the physical universe, learning is always done
at the effect end, and the effect is blind to the source end.
So although we are depending upon cause to give us theoretically
proper effects, we can not use that causal mechanism to verify the cause
nor that cause even exists for the effect at all.
Thus we say that causation is not sufficient to witness causation,
causation is only sufficient to witness the effect.
That is, learning by being an effect is not sufficient to prove the
existence of cause, nor does learning by being an effect allow us more
than to model or theorize about the true nature of that possible cause
if it does exsit.
However there is a certainty of interest that resides between the
absolute uncertainities of the physical sciences and the world of faith.
This is the certainty of consciousness, the certainty we have that
we are conscious and that we exist, the certainty we have of what we are
conscious of, for example the color forms of the visual world around us,
the reds and the greens and other conscious experiences, and the
certainty we have of our own personal agency or causation in the world.
There is a view that consciousness is an epiphenomenom of the brain,
something arises from the brain, but is otherwise not capable of
affecting anything.
Thus the brain can cause changes in the consciousness, but
not the reverse.
If this were true, then the brain could never know there
was a consciousness, and we could never end of talking about it or
writing about it.
Remember that just because A affects B, doesn't mean that
B affects A, and if B does not affect A, then A can never learn
about B not even that B exists, no matter how much A affects B.
Thus there must be two way cause and effect going on between the
brain and consciousness, if the brain even exists. :)
Tell a conscious unit there is no cause in the world, and you have
told him he does not exist.
The search for causation in the physical universe is actually an
anthropomorphization of directly perceived causation in ourselves.
Since we can see by direct perception, and thus with perfect certainty,
that there is causation within our consciousness, we conclude that there
must be causation out there in the physical universe.
(Some may be tempted to say that our perception of personal agency
is just that, simply a perception, and it doesn't indicate the actual
existence of such a thing as cause with certainty. They are saying that
inspite of our direct perception of cause in our selves, perhaps there
still is no cause anywhere in the universe. Think about that for a
while.)
It is this perfect certainty of our own existence and agency that
makes consciousness special and leads us to some startling conclusions
about its non mechanical, non space time, nature.
The material of this paper started with the question could a
machine learn with certainty of its own existence or of anything for
that matter.
As will be developed, the answer is no, and yet as a conscious unit
we are perfectly certain we exist and are agent and thus we are forced
to conclude that we as a conscious unit are not a machine, although we
may be interfaced with one, namely the body/brain system.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Oct 30 17:14:46 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/lcc0.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFWM93GURT1lqxE3HERAodDAKCv9y1Xy16fn/gfrHXoRaRzvUTILQCeKTsz
Mdw+D3dhSRsmWIC2ZWmM1vg=
=iyPP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
adore534.memo (fwd)
PRAYER
The idea that there is only ONE God lost something in the
translation.
God is not a single being.
God is a multi being, a multi I-AM being.
And most of those I-AM's are us in carnation in dreamtime.
All of the I-AM's that form God, form the High-US.
As there is only one High-US, there is only one God.
Perhaps the translation is clearer now.
When people pray to God, they usually pray to a single being, and
thus the prayer fails.
They need instead to pray to the High US.
The problem with praying to the High-US, is your most hated
terminal comes forward. And usually what you are doing to your most
hated terminal is praying to the rest of the High-US to help you do
that terminal in.
Classless prayers go nowhere.
Your prayer doesn't work because you have to include your most
hated terminal in the High-US.
God is a jealous God.
He doesn't like being left out of the prayer!
Any part of Him.
Only if you include your most hated terminal in your prayer to
the High-US can the prayer have any chance of working.
Because then God is fully satisfied you are talking to HIM.
God is not a single being looking after all of us.
God is all of us looking after all of us.
Thus a prayer to work must be to EVERYONE, for if you aren't
looking after your most hated terminal, then you can hardly expect
your most hated terminal to look after you.
And without unanimous accord, nothing happens.
For that is the Law.
And those my friends are the major words of a major religion
aborning in present time.
Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Jul 28 01:21:33 EDT 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Oct 30 09:06:01 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore534.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
The idea that there is only ONE God lost something in the
translation.
God is not a single being.
God is a multi being, a multi I-AM being.
And most of those I-AM's are us in carnation in dreamtime.
All of the I-AM's that form God, form the High-US.
As there is only one High-US, there is only one God.
Perhaps the translation is clearer now.
When people pray to God, they usually pray to a single being, and
thus the prayer fails.
They need instead to pray to the High US.
The problem with praying to the High-US, is your most hated
terminal comes forward. And usually what you are doing to your most
hated terminal is praying to the rest of the High-US to help you do
that terminal in.
Classless prayers go nowhere.
Your prayer doesn't work because you have to include your most
hated terminal in the High-US.
God is a jealous God.
He doesn't like being left out of the prayer!
Any part of Him.
Only if you include your most hated terminal in your prayer to
the High-US can the prayer have any chance of working.
Because then God is fully satisfied you are talking to HIM.
God is not a single being looking after all of us.
God is all of us looking after all of us.
Thus a prayer to work must be to EVERYONE, for if you aren't
looking after your most hated terminal, then you can hardly expect
your most hated terminal to look after you.
And without unanimous accord, nothing happens.
For that is the Law.
And those my friends are the major words of a major religion
aborning in present time.
Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Jul 28 01:21:33 EDT 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Oct 30 09:06:01 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore534.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, October 29, 2015
ADORE158 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
AUTHORS AND CHARACTERS
Homer:
>> Thus operating as an OT is most effective when done so as a group.
Wilka miriaM (posts@nonym.us) wrote:
>*curiuosly-anticipating-a-chapter-on-that-part-of-the-story*
You're asking me? I just channel this crap.
It comes from the analogy of a story with many Authors and many
characters.
Even if each Author takes full responsibility for only one
character, the Author can not enhance the story of his one character
without changing the story of other Characters, thus running afoul of
the efforts of other Authors trying to enhance the story of their own
characters too.
Thus Authors have to work together so the story gets enhanced for
all characters.
The OT operates by adjusting the entire matrix of space/time, the
whole STORY gets adjusted, past, present and future. When more than one
are doing this, it will cause cosmic ridges and failures unless they
dance together.
Because the OT is adjusting the entire space/time matrix, even if
only just a wee bit at a time, there is no propagation delay because
propagation only applies to causes working within the space/time stream.
The human tries to cause big changes in his small area of
influence.
The OT tries to make small changes in the AllThatIS.
The human has to exert an effort to make a postulate happen.
The OT merely has to see how a story can be improved, so it is.
The OT can bring business to his door, but the human has to get up
and ANSWER the door.
Thus merely running
"What makes for a good story?"
"What makes for a bad story?"
is enough to bring the OT changes into place, as the answers tumble
out of the matrix into the OT's view and appreciation.
The OT doesn't have to DO anything, his mere understanding of the
better story is sufficient cause.
Hey if you want to have OT powers you might as well have OT powers,
right?
The one caveat is, that the OT way to KNOW that new understanding,
is to first NOT KNOW IT on purpose for a while.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Thu Oct 29 16:06:48 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFWMnxYURT1lqxE3HERAn67AJwPKHbEQn0Ze84F9EmsXnfZdUke3ACcC9q3
m7dHNecMRgxvMgw6DQwPa4A=
=fN6X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
AUTHORS AND CHARACTERS
Homer:
>> Thus operating as an OT is most effective when done so as a group.
Wilka miriaM (posts@nonym.us) wrote:
>*curiuosly-anticipating-a-chapter-on-that-part-of-the-story*
You're asking me? I just channel this crap.
It comes from the analogy of a story with many Authors and many
characters.
Even if each Author takes full responsibility for only one
character, the Author can not enhance the story of his one character
without changing the story of other Characters, thus running afoul of
the efforts of other Authors trying to enhance the story of their own
characters too.
Thus Authors have to work together so the story gets enhanced for
all characters.
The OT operates by adjusting the entire matrix of space/time, the
whole STORY gets adjusted, past, present and future. When more than one
are doing this, it will cause cosmic ridges and failures unless they
dance together.
Because the OT is adjusting the entire space/time matrix, even if
only just a wee bit at a time, there is no propagation delay because
propagation only applies to causes working within the space/time stream.
The human tries to cause big changes in his small area of
influence.
The OT tries to make small changes in the AllThatIS.
The human has to exert an effort to make a postulate happen.
The OT merely has to see how a story can be improved, so it is.
The OT can bring business to his door, but the human has to get up
and ANSWER the door.
Thus merely running
"What makes for a good story?"
"What makes for a bad story?"
is enough to bring the OT changes into place, as the answers tumble
out of the matrix into the OT's view and appreciation.
The OT doesn't have to DO anything, his mere understanding of the
better story is sufficient cause.
Hey if you want to have OT powers you might as well have OT powers,
right?
The one caveat is, that the OT way to KNOW that new understanding,
is to first NOT KNOW IT on purpose for a while.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Thu Oct 29 16:06:48 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFWMnxYURT1lqxE3HERAn67AJwPKHbEQn0Ze84F9EmsXnfZdUke3ACcC9q3
m7dHNecMRgxvMgw6DQwPa4A=
=fN6X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
ADORE364 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
GAMES II
Games do not have to be the liability that some make them out to
be.
Basically a being can do anything forever just as long as he
doesn't get stuck in forevers.
Forever anything is bad (in time).
Anything for a while is good.
The primary forevers involved with games, is having to play games
forever and not being able to play games forever.
The forevers distort the view of the while in which these things
actually live. It's always finite.
There are an infinite number of available top level whiles however.
When ever a game becomes something about forever, good vanquishing
evil forever for example, when one side refuses responsibility for the
invitation to the other side, then the one side goes down the tubes
fighting something it never created, while the side that is fought wins
by default.
Good won't invite evil in, but evil sure as hell will invite good
in, yum.
Since the way in is the way out, and since making anything exactly
as it was originally made creates an as-isness or vanishing truth, thus
vanishing any created condition of existence, the only real way to fight
something is to make it, then it will vanish and you win as the last one
still standing, unless you vanish yourself with it.
But if instead you complain that you wouldn't have created it,
couldn't have created it, shouldn't have created it, and thus wouldn't
couldn't, shouldn't make it again, well then you can never as-is it.
That's about the entirety of persistent decline into hell.
Thus once good men become bent on destroying evil men FOREVER,
because no one should ever have created them in the first place, good
men sink quickly into their own hell forever for just as long as they
continue the fight to destroy evil forever.
For one you can't destroy anything forever, you can get it out of
THIS time line, but someone will always create something worse in THAT
time line. Get it?
Secondly you wouldn't want to destroy something forever, games of
doing so are meant to be played, and thirdly the whole thing is a denial
of authorship and of inviting the other side in and the aesthetics of
of creating good AND evil.
So we have to ask what is the nature of God? Is God good?
What good in their right mind would create evil just so good could
have something to fight?
Is that Human/Soul/Character/Creature goodness?
No but it might be God/Author/Creator goodness.
A rip roaring good game, all this fighting evil, eh?
Even if none of the players want to be there after they jump in.
These rules of persistence are not arbitrary, they are the very
warp and woof of Sovereignty.
You can't stop what you deny starting, because there is nothing in
the universe you didn't start in whole or in part one way or another even
if by just AGREEING to it when you came into an ongoing games.
Games are made of aesthetic and invite, reoperation of both vanishes
anything in the game once you let go of putting it there. Thus while in
the game, persistence DEPENDS upon lack of awareness of both aesthetic and
invite. Once has to put that there too to make it persist, and reoperate
that lack of awareness again to let it go to get rid of it.
Things don't persist just because you put them there, they persist
because you put them there and then immediately alter-is your relation
to them to shouldn't, wouldn't, couldn't put them there. The question
"Where the HELL did THAT come from?" keeps the charade going on.
So by reoperation of that charade, maintaining awareness that one is
doing this at the moment of creation, the things that are being put there
WON'T persist.
Thus by putting things there again and the charade that one didn't
put them there, one can change one's mind just before one gets serious
about denial of responsibility for them, and in letting go they don't
persist. That's how you get rid of something, you start it again but
don't continue it with ferverous hatred for what you just put there.
Even if you didn't start it personally, you started that you didn't
start it and that others could, that's invite you see, and so in the end
the buck stops with you.
And even if you didn't put it there originally, if you put it there
NOW, its yours. Scary, isn't it?
A sovereign being just can't have 'something he had nothing to do
with' in his dream unless he conceived it into existence for his own
entertainment.
He can end it in a moment if he doesn't like it, merely by
reoccupying the persisting moment of it's conception and the alter-is
that followed, until the persisting moment vanishes, after which
everything that followed from that moment will vanish.
We are not talking about car polish here, we are talking
VANISHMENT.
You haven't as-ised anything recently?
How do you know? It would be *GONE*.
A sovereign being can not fight what it had no hand in creating,
because a sovereign being had a hand in everything he is experiencing.
A sovereign being can exit from any situation at any time without
permission, help or co intent from others. But he has to be willing to,
and not so scared of his own sovereignty and what it might create next
that he refuses to sit in his own throne.
If you make something FROM YOUR THRONE, you can stop making it but
only FROM YOUR OWN THRONE.
Sovereignty is scary, who knows what it might create next, being a
victim is safe, at least its not worse!
If a sovereign being is still in a condition he wants to get out
of, he still has a strong intent to be there.
You have to decide if its a matter of inability or unwillingness to
change.
Is it can't or won't?
The creature mode thinks in terms of can'ts, the creator mode thinks
in terms of won'ts.
A sovereign being is, in the last analysis, only affected by his own
intent, if only the intent to be an effect of something!
Auditing is in the direction of getting the sovereign being to
recognize he was, is and always will be a sovereign being, it has never
been any other way, nor could it ever be any other way.
The conscious unit, the intent viewport into the universe, is the
sovereign being. Nothing can happen in his dream that doesn't flow
through the portal of his intent. It may be subconscious, it may be
forgotten, it may be invited creativity from other similar portals, but
the intent is active in present time keeping the intended condition
active in present time.
A sovereign being will however create the illusion of fighting
something it had no hand in creating, but only for while, until he gets
the joke.
Until then however the being will fight the illusion with protest,
upset, failed withdraw, resentment, resistance followed by the
inevitable persistence and persistence of non persistence that must
arise from sovereignty pretending to be victim.
One must as-is the INTENT to have a condition, before one can as-is
the condition, because the intent comes first.
The intent includes aesthetic motivation, there was beauty to the
created art of ludicrous demise, so it is not enough to simply try to
withdraw a detested intent, you see?
One must be able to RECREATE IT FULLY and with cosmic zest, and thus
be in contact again with the being's own fountainhead of source and the
beauty of which it is made, and the beauty with which he originally
created the intent.
That beauty however is not a human beauty, it is a divine beauty,
which is why 'they saw the light and comprehended it not'.
It is the beauty of something that WOULD HAVE, COULD HAVE, and
SHOULD HAVE created the present game which is killing you in cold blood,
and making your life and those of your loved ones, feel like the bottom
of an ashtray.
MYSTERY SURPRISE PAIRS
Every 'joke' is created as a mystery and surprise.
You can't have a mystery without a later surprise, and you can't
have a surprise without a prior mystery.
Neither one can exist in the absence of the other one.
That may sound absurd to those of us stuck in the middle of the
universe with mysteries galore and no surprises in sight. But in the
end you will find that every mystery is resolved through surprise into
laughter and delight followed by peace.
Peace is the absence of mystery/surprise pairs.
(ARCX means ARC break, which means a break in or sudden sundering
of Affinity, Reality, Communication, and Understanding).
The mystery creates an ARCX with SELF from violation of
sovereignty, and the surprise resolves the being back to sovereignty
with laughter and delight followed by peace again.
Sovereignty restored through recognition of Sovereignty never lost.
Delight is "Man, you really fooled me!".
"You really had me going there for a moment."
"You got me!"
That is laughter and relief.
Majesty is the sovereign desire that desire not be sovereign for a
while. Majesty is the joke factory.
The joke was fair chosen and *MAJESTIC* like purple mountain's
majesty at sunset, golden glow and all.
It was fair chosen of "ExCaliper and Grand Design." - Adore
ExCaliper means without measure, worth without measure.
It's the valley of the *SHADOW* of death. You see?
Not pre designed necessarily, a creative being doesn't consider
before he considers, he simply considers and considers more. And if he
doesn't like what he has considered, he stops considering and it
vanishes.
This is creation in the mere conception of things, with absolute
veto power over what is created after the fact of its creation.
Thus the being is always totally repsonsibile for his own condition
even if he hasn't a single clue about what he is doing or is going to
create next. He can always end anything he doesn't like.
This is spontaneous design we are talking about.
Apparently the creative imp soul issues jokes as it's fundamental
operation of emanation.
That's a big statement, dig it and don't leave it.
Now I can hear someone say "This place sure doesn't look like a
joke to me!"
And it will remain that way until he restores his willingness to
PUT THERE what he is fighting because "it should never have been there
in the first place."
The joke is not necessarily in WHAT is created, but in how he got
it to persist. So EVERYTHING PERSISTING NO MATTER WHAT IT IS is part of
the joke.
There is nothing more ludicrous than the pretense of existence
in the things we are conscious of.
The human considers that what he is conscious of is something,
and his consciousness is nothing.
The God considers his consciousness something, and what he
is conscious of to be nothing, just polarizations of color form in
his consciousness.
The God understands that his sense of existence that he feels
towards things he is conscious of is casted onto them from the FACT of
the existence of his own consciousness.
In this way the God function of the GodSoul casts his own existence
onto the glow in the dark illusions of existence he creates around him
IN HIS OWN SUBSTRATE.
The tree doesn't exist, the glow in the dark rendition of the tree
in the substrate of God does exist, a God itself is glowing in the dark
of the void for his own perceptual edification.
Thus good is not happy fighting ultimate evil, but can't win until
good becomes facile at creating ultimate evil forever for free, and
scattering it all over the playing field.
Then good graduates up to become divine, and unvanquishable.
You can only vanquish what you are willing to put there, including
your unwillingness to put it there.
Run,
Spot NO fear of Divinity.
Spot SOME fear of Divinity.
Homer
GAMES
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/games1
GAMES II
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/games2
GAMES III
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/games3
GAMES IV
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/games4
GAMES V
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/games5
GAMES VI
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/games6
GAMES VII
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/games7
GAMES VIII
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/games8
GAMES IX
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/games9
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Thu Aug 17 00:30:04 EDT 2006
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Wed Oct 28 14:03:00 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore364.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFWMQ3UURT1lqxE3HERAnMcAJ4vp1OOqjRn76nH1XLUJJFg0g11SgCgnejl
XMlG27kD1hMaZRYJqVlzPDM=
=Iao4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
GAMES II
Games do not have to be the liability that some make them out to
be.
Basically a being can do anything forever just as long as he
doesn't get stuck in forevers.
Forever anything is bad (in time).
Anything for a while is good.
The primary forevers involved with games, is having to play games
forever and not being able to play games forever.
The forevers distort the view of the while in which these things
actually live. It's always finite.
There are an infinite number of available top level whiles however.
When ever a game becomes something about forever, good vanquishing
evil forever for example, when one side refuses responsibility for the
invitation to the other side, then the one side goes down the tubes
fighting something it never created, while the side that is fought wins
by default.
Good won't invite evil in, but evil sure as hell will invite good
in, yum.
Since the way in is the way out, and since making anything exactly
as it was originally made creates an as-isness or vanishing truth, thus
vanishing any created condition of existence, the only real way to fight
something is to make it, then it will vanish and you win as the last one
still standing, unless you vanish yourself with it.
But if instead you complain that you wouldn't have created it,
couldn't have created it, shouldn't have created it, and thus wouldn't
couldn't, shouldn't make it again, well then you can never as-is it.
That's about the entirety of persistent decline into hell.
Thus once good men become bent on destroying evil men FOREVER,
because no one should ever have created them in the first place, good
men sink quickly into their own hell forever for just as long as they
continue the fight to destroy evil forever.
For one you can't destroy anything forever, you can get it out of
THIS time line, but someone will always create something worse in THAT
time line. Get it?
Secondly you wouldn't want to destroy something forever, games of
doing so are meant to be played, and thirdly the whole thing is a denial
of authorship and of inviting the other side in and the aesthetics of
of creating good AND evil.
So we have to ask what is the nature of God? Is God good?
What good in their right mind would create evil just so good could
have something to fight?
Is that Human/Soul/Character/Creature goodness?
No but it might be God/Author/Creator goodness.
A rip roaring good game, all this fighting evil, eh?
Even if none of the players want to be there after they jump in.
These rules of persistence are not arbitrary, they are the very
warp and woof of Sovereignty.
You can't stop what you deny starting, because there is nothing in
the universe you didn't start in whole or in part one way or another even
if by just AGREEING to it when you came into an ongoing games.
Games are made of aesthetic and invite, reoperation of both vanishes
anything in the game once you let go of putting it there. Thus while in
the game, persistence DEPENDS upon lack of awareness of both aesthetic and
invite. Once has to put that there too to make it persist, and reoperate
that lack of awareness again to let it go to get rid of it.
Things don't persist just because you put them there, they persist
because you put them there and then immediately alter-is your relation
to them to shouldn't, wouldn't, couldn't put them there. The question
"Where the HELL did THAT come from?" keeps the charade going on.
So by reoperation of that charade, maintaining awareness that one is
doing this at the moment of creation, the things that are being put there
WON'T persist.
Thus by putting things there again and the charade that one didn't
put them there, one can change one's mind just before one gets serious
about denial of responsibility for them, and in letting go they don't
persist. That's how you get rid of something, you start it again but
don't continue it with ferverous hatred for what you just put there.
Even if you didn't start it personally, you started that you didn't
start it and that others could, that's invite you see, and so in the end
the buck stops with you.
And even if you didn't put it there originally, if you put it there
NOW, its yours. Scary, isn't it?
A sovereign being just can't have 'something he had nothing to do
with' in his dream unless he conceived it into existence for his own
entertainment.
He can end it in a moment if he doesn't like it, merely by
reoccupying the persisting moment of it's conception and the alter-is
that followed, until the persisting moment vanishes, after which
everything that followed from that moment will vanish.
We are not talking about car polish here, we are talking
VANISHMENT.
You haven't as-ised anything recently?
How do you know? It would be *GONE*.
A sovereign being can not fight what it had no hand in creating,
because a sovereign being had a hand in everything he is experiencing.
A sovereign being can exit from any situation at any time without
permission, help or co intent from others. But he has to be willing to,
and not so scared of his own sovereignty and what it might create next
that he refuses to sit in his own throne.
If you make something FROM YOUR THRONE, you can stop making it but
only FROM YOUR OWN THRONE.
Sovereignty is scary, who knows what it might create next, being a
victim is safe, at least its not worse!
If a sovereign being is still in a condition he wants to get out
of, he still has a strong intent to be there.
You have to decide if its a matter of inability or unwillingness to
change.
Is it can't or won't?
The creature mode thinks in terms of can'ts, the creator mode thinks
in terms of won'ts.
A sovereign being is, in the last analysis, only affected by his own
intent, if only the intent to be an effect of something!
Auditing is in the direction of getting the sovereign being to
recognize he was, is and always will be a sovereign being, it has never
been any other way, nor could it ever be any other way.
The conscious unit, the intent viewport into the universe, is the
sovereign being. Nothing can happen in his dream that doesn't flow
through the portal of his intent. It may be subconscious, it may be
forgotten, it may be invited creativity from other similar portals, but
the intent is active in present time keeping the intended condition
active in present time.
A sovereign being will however create the illusion of fighting
something it had no hand in creating, but only for while, until he gets
the joke.
Until then however the being will fight the illusion with protest,
upset, failed withdraw, resentment, resistance followed by the
inevitable persistence and persistence of non persistence that must
arise from sovereignty pretending to be victim.
One must as-is the INTENT to have a condition, before one can as-is
the condition, because the intent comes first.
The intent includes aesthetic motivation, there was beauty to the
created art of ludicrous demise, so it is not enough to simply try to
withdraw a detested intent, you see?
One must be able to RECREATE IT FULLY and with cosmic zest, and thus
be in contact again with the being's own fountainhead of source and the
beauty of which it is made, and the beauty with which he originally
created the intent.
That beauty however is not a human beauty, it is a divine beauty,
which is why 'they saw the light and comprehended it not'.
It is the beauty of something that WOULD HAVE, COULD HAVE, and
SHOULD HAVE created the present game which is killing you in cold blood,
and making your life and those of your loved ones, feel like the bottom
of an ashtray.
MYSTERY SURPRISE PAIRS
Every 'joke' is created as a mystery and surprise.
You can't have a mystery without a later surprise, and you can't
have a surprise without a prior mystery.
Neither one can exist in the absence of the other one.
That may sound absurd to those of us stuck in the middle of the
universe with mysteries galore and no surprises in sight. But in the
end you will find that every mystery is resolved through surprise into
laughter and delight followed by peace.
Peace is the absence of mystery/surprise pairs.
(ARCX means ARC break, which means a break in or sudden sundering
of Affinity, Reality, Communication, and Understanding).
The mystery creates an ARCX with SELF from violation of
sovereignty, and the surprise resolves the being back to sovereignty
with laughter and delight followed by peace again.
Sovereignty restored through recognition of Sovereignty never lost.
Delight is "Man, you really fooled me!".
"You really had me going there for a moment."
"You got me!"
That is laughter and relief.
Majesty is the sovereign desire that desire not be sovereign for a
while. Majesty is the joke factory.
The joke was fair chosen and *MAJESTIC* like purple mountain's
majesty at sunset, golden glow and all.
It was fair chosen of "ExCaliper and Grand Design." - Adore
ExCaliper means without measure, worth without measure.
It's the valley of the *SHADOW* of death. You see?
Not pre designed necessarily, a creative being doesn't consider
before he considers, he simply considers and considers more. And if he
doesn't like what he has considered, he stops considering and it
vanishes.
This is creation in the mere conception of things, with absolute
veto power over what is created after the fact of its creation.
Thus the being is always totally repsonsibile for his own condition
even if he hasn't a single clue about what he is doing or is going to
create next. He can always end anything he doesn't like.
This is spontaneous design we are talking about.
Apparently the creative imp soul issues jokes as it's fundamental
operation of emanation.
That's a big statement, dig it and don't leave it.
Now I can hear someone say "This place sure doesn't look like a
joke to me!"
And it will remain that way until he restores his willingness to
PUT THERE what he is fighting because "it should never have been there
in the first place."
The joke is not necessarily in WHAT is created, but in how he got
it to persist. So EVERYTHING PERSISTING NO MATTER WHAT IT IS is part of
the joke.
There is nothing more ludicrous than the pretense of existence
in the things we are conscious of.
The human considers that what he is conscious of is something,
and his consciousness is nothing.
The God considers his consciousness something, and what he
is conscious of to be nothing, just polarizations of color form in
his consciousness.
The God understands that his sense of existence that he feels
towards things he is conscious of is casted onto them from the FACT of
the existence of his own consciousness.
In this way the God function of the GodSoul casts his own existence
onto the glow in the dark illusions of existence he creates around him
IN HIS OWN SUBSTRATE.
The tree doesn't exist, the glow in the dark rendition of the tree
in the substrate of God does exist, a God itself is glowing in the dark
of the void for his own perceptual edification.
Thus good is not happy fighting ultimate evil, but can't win until
good becomes facile at creating ultimate evil forever for free, and
scattering it all over the playing field.
Then good graduates up to become divine, and unvanquishable.
You can only vanquish what you are willing to put there, including
your unwillingness to put it there.
Run,
Spot NO fear of Divinity.
Spot SOME fear of Divinity.
Homer
GAMES
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/games1
GAMES II
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/games2
GAMES III
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/games3
GAMES IV
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/games4
GAMES V
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/games5
GAMES VI
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/games6
GAMES VII
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/games7
GAMES VIII
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/games8
GAMES IX
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/games9
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Thu Aug 17 00:30:04 EDT 2006
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Wed Oct 28 14:03:00 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore364.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFWMQ3UURT1lqxE3HERAnMcAJ4vp1OOqjRn76nH1XLUJJFg0g11SgCgnejl
XMlG27kD1hMaZRYJqVlzPDM=
=Iao4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
ADORE758 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
INFINITIES
Your preclear has gotten involved in infinities.
At first it was an infinity of different spaces, objects and times.
This was outside the doorstep of Eternality.
Then lower down it became one infinite space and time.
This was Immortality.
Then it became an infinite loss of infinite spaces, objects and
times.
This was mortality.
It doesn't matter whether your preclear is a pigball, er I mean
meatball, or not, all beings go through the same dwindling spiral of
desire and havingness.
The desire of all beings is the freedom of eternality with an
infinite number of different infinite universes and futures to choose
from,
And if you recover the early childhood of your preclear where he
can't remember, there you will find that desire burning strong as ever.
But it can get crushed out pretty quick though, particularly in the
meatball, as the weight of the infinite losses along the whole track are
ready and waiting to key in at the first mis thought.
The fall from eternality to immortality was an infinite loss, one
starts with the ability to freely create or move among an infinite
number of infinite spaces and times, and ends up stuck forever in just
one infinite space and time.
The fall from immortality to mortality is another infinite loss as
one starts with at least one endless future of games and adventures, and
ends up with only one life.
The being thus has two levels of infinite loss weighing him down,
and in order to get him out of his depressions, he will need to start
thinking in terms of infinities of infinities again.
Thus you will have to go for the top, eternality, because the being
just won't dare go back to his last immortality, it was just too
horrendous to bear.
Eternality = infinities of infinities
Immortality = one infinity
Mortality = zero infinities.
He has been seeking peace (eternality) through death (mortality)
for a very long time.
He is trying to sleep or die INSIDE some of the space times he
still has available to him.
As he goes to sleep in one, he falls into a dream in the next
one down.
Thus your preclear is asleep at a number of different levels in a
number of different space times each one within the other.
You can call this dreams within dreams, each dream seeking to sleep
and never dream again. But each dream he goes to sleep in, he starts to
dream at the next universe down.
Even now he will tell you that the best dreams he has, are the
dreams where he is able to lie down and sleep within the dream.
Remember the top of the tone scale at native state is simply
eternal sleep.
So is the bottom of the tone scale.
At the top its fair chosen.
At the bottom its unfair unchosen.
In the meanwhile the being is trying to go to sleep forever IN TIME
or what's left of it for him.
But that leaves him impingable, anyone can come a knockin' on his
door because going to sleep in time marks you as the effect of
EVERYTHING, so of course you keep get woken up.
You are effect, everything else is cause, that's impingability.
Bums call it 'getting rolled'.
Get it?
I have no idea how to run it, I would start by assessing for how
many sleeps within sleeps he is from Native State. This will be the
total number of universes he played games in, and then tried to die in
the universe rather than waking up to native state again.
It won't be infinite.
That will give him an idea of where he is and when he is.
Then get him to spot his upsets with 0 and only 1 infinity of space
and time.
Then get him mocking up an infinity of different infinite spaces
and and times.
Then get him mocking up an infinite number of beings like himself
all mocking up infinite numbers of different infinite spaces and times.
This should restore his ARC for infinity, as 1 finfinity was
never enough.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun May 2 01:09:54 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Oct 27 12:06:02 EDT 2015
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore758.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFWL6DqURT1lqxE3HERAlp1AJ4v8WoS4zvFDJH5etlYlvmwre3fWgCgwr3P
+nHa6TSY64G0LIu+AvFqFYQ=
=8Hhx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
INFINITIES
Your preclear has gotten involved in infinities.
At first it was an infinity of different spaces, objects and times.
This was outside the doorstep of Eternality.
Then lower down it became one infinite space and time.
This was Immortality.
Then it became an infinite loss of infinite spaces, objects and
times.
This was mortality.
It doesn't matter whether your preclear is a pigball, er I mean
meatball, or not, all beings go through the same dwindling spiral of
desire and havingness.
The desire of all beings is the freedom of eternality with an
infinite number of different infinite universes and futures to choose
from,
And if you recover the early childhood of your preclear where he
can't remember, there you will find that desire burning strong as ever.
But it can get crushed out pretty quick though, particularly in the
meatball, as the weight of the infinite losses along the whole track are
ready and waiting to key in at the first mis thought.
The fall from eternality to immortality was an infinite loss, one
starts with the ability to freely create or move among an infinite
number of infinite spaces and times, and ends up stuck forever in just
one infinite space and time.
The fall from immortality to mortality is another infinite loss as
one starts with at least one endless future of games and adventures, and
ends up with only one life.
The being thus has two levels of infinite loss weighing him down,
and in order to get him out of his depressions, he will need to start
thinking in terms of infinities of infinities again.
Thus you will have to go for the top, eternality, because the being
just won't dare go back to his last immortality, it was just too
horrendous to bear.
Eternality = infinities of infinities
Immortality = one infinity
Mortality = zero infinities.
He has been seeking peace (eternality) through death (mortality)
for a very long time.
He is trying to sleep or die INSIDE some of the space times he
still has available to him.
As he goes to sleep in one, he falls into a dream in the next
one down.
Thus your preclear is asleep at a number of different levels in a
number of different space times each one within the other.
You can call this dreams within dreams, each dream seeking to sleep
and never dream again. But each dream he goes to sleep in, he starts to
dream at the next universe down.
Even now he will tell you that the best dreams he has, are the
dreams where he is able to lie down and sleep within the dream.
Remember the top of the tone scale at native state is simply
eternal sleep.
So is the bottom of the tone scale.
At the top its fair chosen.
At the bottom its unfair unchosen.
In the meanwhile the being is trying to go to sleep forever IN TIME
or what's left of it for him.
But that leaves him impingable, anyone can come a knockin' on his
door because going to sleep in time marks you as the effect of
EVERYTHING, so of course you keep get woken up.
You are effect, everything else is cause, that's impingability.
Bums call it 'getting rolled'.
Get it?
I have no idea how to run it, I would start by assessing for how
many sleeps within sleeps he is from Native State. This will be the
total number of universes he played games in, and then tried to die in
the universe rather than waking up to native state again.
It won't be infinite.
That will give him an idea of where he is and when he is.
Then get him to spot his upsets with 0 and only 1 infinity of space
and time.
Then get him mocking up an infinity of different infinite spaces
and and times.
Then get him mocking up an infinite number of beings like himself
all mocking up infinite numbers of different infinite spaces and times.
This should restore his ARC for infinity, as 1 finfinity was
never enough.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun May 2 01:09:54 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Oct 27 12:06:02 EDT 2015
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore758.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFWL6DqURT1lqxE3HERAlp1AJ4v8WoS4zvFDJH5etlYlvmwre3fWgCgwr3P
+nHa6TSY64G0LIu+AvFqFYQ=
=8Hhx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, October 26, 2015
TEACHING THE PROOF
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
TEACHING THE PROOF
> You have done this? If not, then go to the physics department.
> Find someone who looks at it all from above, rather than from within.
> There are surely some there who do. It would be interesting to see what
> they think.
I have been at Cornell here for 40 years, thousands of
conversations etc.
I talk to everyone I meet, try to take them to their frontiers of
thought. Most have a hard ceiling above which they will not go.
Many are religious, they think there is some mystery to it etc, but
they freak if I start talking too close to scalar and fair chosen choice
to forget a fair chosen choice.
They have lost sight of their eternality and they fear immortality
more than mortality, they fear hell forever more than death forever, so
they choose the pretense of death forever in a (virtual) meatbody rather
than face the monsters of hell they left behind them and had become.
The whole proof is on the net and has been for years.
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof
Some of Adore is on the net too: http://www.adore.com
I had a single page of the proof pinned up in the math student
lounge for YEARS and got not one single comment.
They considered me the local weirdo and intellectual trouble maker.
The few I managed to take it up with, giggled nervously and quickly
changed the subject, probably as too ludicrous or galling to consider.
I ran it as an ad in the Cornell Daily Sun for YEARS requesting
interested parties to contact me about it. Not one call.
I have shown it to a few friends like Jane, Bunny and Patty Perrin
who simply got it, but most others like Crackers just freaked out about
it and finally started ordering me to not talk about it. I have had
math professors do the same, and even high level Scientologists who
ought to know better.
I mostly get nutcackes, "I doubt everything! I even doubt that I
doubt everything! At least I am being consistent, I think."
You know Wind Between The Ears kinds of people who belong in Godel
Jail for life.
Respectable world reknown quantum mechanics experts tell me 'Oh we
know we can't be certain of anything!' 'Besides what is existence
anyhow, no one can define it.'
Since I AM and I KNOW it, I just wonder what their PhD's are about
except a long sojourn in Academentia.
I will be making youtube videos in the near future going over the
whole thing in detail, but its 40 years of work to organize.
Lot's of people on the net are very close to the subject, they know
the world is a dream, google for the holographic universe, and the scifi
Dead Forever triology.
But they don't have a clue what perfect certainty is and the
problems with it, and they have never gotten a single finger on EXACTLY
what it is with consciousness that makes it consciousness.
Consciousness IS the facility of perfect certainty.
How can there be perfect certainty?
Zero Emission Visuals, ZEV, flies right over their heads.
Artificial Intelligence assholes think that because a circuit says
'Ow!' it must feel pain, they claim that obfuscation through more
complexity will somehow make the pain actual, and they never ask how
will they PROVE with perfect certainty that their circuit actually feels
pain. Just because it says so?
So I am not alone, but I no longer am interested in making
idiotized people wrong, especially those with PhD's to prove their
idioticy.
They need their mysteries and total irresponsibility for condition
etc. A few buddhists and scientologists to the contrary.
If someone reaches to me and asks about it, I will work with them
until they are terrified out of their wits, and lay off before they
start to die of it.
There is a reason the bible says don't throw pigs before pearls.
In the first place pigs are heavy, but in the second place they
bite.
But in teaching these things, there is a point of no going back.
You can talk about the world being a dream in the mind of God, and
that the physical universe is God's conscious imaginings, and each soul
is a drop or spark of God that goes back into the great pool when they
die. Anything so they can look forward to total oblivion forever for
free when they die.
But once you get close to the concept of a GodSoul as
Creator/Creature fully responsible for its own condition via choice and
choice to not know a choice, let alone that this GodSoul is a FULL
instantiation of the infinite, not a fucking drop of the ocean but the
whole ocean in multi in carnations at once, they don't want to know any
more. "I *KNOW* I was made by God, and I live for HIS purposes, what
they are God knows..."
Most never come back to talk to me again, they know I know and that
bothers them no end. They wonder what else I might know.
One night last November we were invited to dinner by some closish
friends of Jane. Both husband and wife were non religious meatballs,
but very much into academentia and erudition.
So I start to take the guy to task about some very simple issues
like forgotten choices to forget choices to be born etc, and we went on
for hours. We talked about the absolute lack of evidence for anything
behond this life in his entire life experience.
And he kept asking why in would anyone CHOOSE to be born?
He finally said he couldn't wrap his wits around any of it, and
admitted he hadn't ever even thought about having lived before or living
again.
That's shallower than a dry river bed.
The next morning he woke up dead, er didn't wake up because he WAS
dead.
During the middle of the night, he took a too hard look at the
possibility of having chosen to not know, and it killed him dead.
Coincidence?
Remember the Richard Kitchen comic book that had the story of this
poor guy on the back in about 31 frames. From birth to death the guy
was struggling through life with a big question mark above his head.
Then he dies in the 30th frame. Then in the 31st frame he
momentarily wakes up with a huge exclamation mark over his head, then
dies again.
Been dealing with the widow ever since.
The material over 40 years has made me so sick I might as well be
living in a morgue and might make it there yet.
"Send my mail to the end of the trail...", the morgue or some house
of dementia.
Imagine making a whole auditorium start puking or exteriorizing or
keeling over by simply talking about the process of perfect certainty
through a self luminous scalar? Something that was a non temporal non
space process, where causation of perception could be seen directly?
What is the color of agency anyhow?
You can see the red and the green sitting out there next to each
other, but can you see the existence of the CAUSE between the red and
your ability to SEE the red and the green and know they are different
That's incoming cause during simple perception of color form.
No machine can do that, because it can never see what it is
looking at, only a messenger wave it received from it, who knows
where the messenger wave came from.
The messenger you may trust but the King who sent him is always a
theory.
If you put out a mockup of color in front of you can you see the
outgoing cause you are generating as your self conscious self to put the
red mockup there?
That's out going cause.
Machines can't do that either, they can't see cause, cause is a
theory to them only.
You can't see cause in the physical universe, but you sure can see
cause in your own consiousness.
Machines an only learn about objects in the presence of emissions
from the objects they want to learn about.
Red and Green conscious experiences are Zero Emmission phenomenon,
and therefore timeless and spaceless to boot.
There is always time in the physical universe between the King and
the arrival of the messenger emission, and by the time the messenger
arrives THE KING IS LONG GONE, at least the one that issued the message.
In a zero emission process, one is looking at the cause directly,
one SEES THE KING, not some messenger, and the existence of the King IS
the seeing of the King, and so there is no time in the process of
perception, and you can see this and verify it and know it is true with
perfect certainty.
If there is any space or time between the looker and the looked-at
the looked-at would not be seeable.
Looking directly at cause is called direct perception.
Looking at messenger effectgs is called indirect perception.
The physical universe runs on indirect perception at all times.
The conscious universe runs on direct perception at all times.
Thus the facility of perfect certainty is also the facility of
direct perception of cause, not indirect perception of cause by looking
at effects.
Ron Hubbard thought that some things shouldn't be talked about
because they can kill some people. I have come to think he is right.
Most people can't conceive of something so dangerous that to even
think about it could make them permanently ill or kill them dead through
a racing heart or blown up brain.
But neither can they consider the choice to forget a choice to be
born as a human and how much anger there is around that subject.
WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD CHOOSE TO BE A HUMAN WHO THOUGHT THEY
LIVED ONLY ONCE AND DIED ONLY ONCE?
So we are left with the possibility that between lives, spirits who
are seeking incarnation are COMPLETELY SCREAMING INSANE, wanting to die
and not being able to, except to pretend they WILL die someday by
pretending they ARE something that can and will die for sure, the body.
Pull up the murderous rage surrounding these subjects on some
people and they just explode all their fuses all at once trying to keep
it under control and act it out at the same time.
They don't know who to kill, but will die trying to find out!
People are so mad at their own view of the world, I don't care what
it is, God or Mammon, they have chernobyled it in so much emotional
concrete that there is nothing there any more, just "Hi how are you?
Fine, thank you."
Not.
That's two stupid Earthlings lying to each other desperately trying
to avoid having a near life experience.
And now I going to wake them up to their real feelings, wanting to
drown in the blood of their enemies?
God is not a god of love, he is a god of love AND hate, beauty AND
ugly, adoration AND abomination, and the soul is that god in carnation
under its own choice.
The Soul can not confront what it has made of itself, nor what it
was when it made it self that way.
Two strikes and you are out.
Thus we are stuck in a universe, in a body, in being human, which
looks ok to a human until he wakes up one day and realizes that being
human is about as inhuman and unhuman as it comes.
NO *HUMAN* would ever choose to become a human.
So what then did chose such an abomination for itself?
What chose is scarier than what it chose to be, so people remain
what they chose to be, human, as the final safe solution to never being
again what they were when they WANTED to be human and choose to be so.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, dunbarx@aol.com wrote:
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Oct 26 19:23:18 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore984.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFWLrXmURT1lqxE3HERAsQRAJ9GXZ0CBdzqMWhCm9tnzyIIs7FIKACfWXLo
Pvpm4kb5kK8E67yHLvDp6k8=
=m/z9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
TEACHING THE PROOF
> You have done this? If not, then go to the physics department.
> Find someone who looks at it all from above, rather than from within.
> There are surely some there who do. It would be interesting to see what
> they think.
I have been at Cornell here for 40 years, thousands of
conversations etc.
I talk to everyone I meet, try to take them to their frontiers of
thought. Most have a hard ceiling above which they will not go.
Many are religious, they think there is some mystery to it etc, but
they freak if I start talking too close to scalar and fair chosen choice
to forget a fair chosen choice.
They have lost sight of their eternality and they fear immortality
more than mortality, they fear hell forever more than death forever, so
they choose the pretense of death forever in a (virtual) meatbody rather
than face the monsters of hell they left behind them and had become.
The whole proof is on the net and has been for years.
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof
Some of Adore is on the net too: http://www.adore.com
I had a single page of the proof pinned up in the math student
lounge for YEARS and got not one single comment.
They considered me the local weirdo and intellectual trouble maker.
The few I managed to take it up with, giggled nervously and quickly
changed the subject, probably as too ludicrous or galling to consider.
I ran it as an ad in the Cornell Daily Sun for YEARS requesting
interested parties to contact me about it. Not one call.
I have shown it to a few friends like Jane, Bunny and Patty Perrin
who simply got it, but most others like Crackers just freaked out about
it and finally started ordering me to not talk about it. I have had
math professors do the same, and even high level Scientologists who
ought to know better.
I mostly get nutcackes, "I doubt everything! I even doubt that I
doubt everything! At least I am being consistent, I think."
You know Wind Between The Ears kinds of people who belong in Godel
Jail for life.
Respectable world reknown quantum mechanics experts tell me 'Oh we
know we can't be certain of anything!' 'Besides what is existence
anyhow, no one can define it.'
Since I AM and I KNOW it, I just wonder what their PhD's are about
except a long sojourn in Academentia.
I will be making youtube videos in the near future going over the
whole thing in detail, but its 40 years of work to organize.
Lot's of people on the net are very close to the subject, they know
the world is a dream, google for the holographic universe, and the scifi
Dead Forever triology.
But they don't have a clue what perfect certainty is and the
problems with it, and they have never gotten a single finger on EXACTLY
what it is with consciousness that makes it consciousness.
Consciousness IS the facility of perfect certainty.
How can there be perfect certainty?
Zero Emission Visuals, ZEV, flies right over their heads.
Artificial Intelligence assholes think that because a circuit says
'Ow!' it must feel pain, they claim that obfuscation through more
complexity will somehow make the pain actual, and they never ask how
will they PROVE with perfect certainty that their circuit actually feels
pain. Just because it says so?
So I am not alone, but I no longer am interested in making
idiotized people wrong, especially those with PhD's to prove their
idioticy.
They need their mysteries and total irresponsibility for condition
etc. A few buddhists and scientologists to the contrary.
If someone reaches to me and asks about it, I will work with them
until they are terrified out of their wits, and lay off before they
start to die of it.
There is a reason the bible says don't throw pigs before pearls.
In the first place pigs are heavy, but in the second place they
bite.
But in teaching these things, there is a point of no going back.
You can talk about the world being a dream in the mind of God, and
that the physical universe is God's conscious imaginings, and each soul
is a drop or spark of God that goes back into the great pool when they
die. Anything so they can look forward to total oblivion forever for
free when they die.
But once you get close to the concept of a GodSoul as
Creator/Creature fully responsible for its own condition via choice and
choice to not know a choice, let alone that this GodSoul is a FULL
instantiation of the infinite, not a fucking drop of the ocean but the
whole ocean in multi in carnations at once, they don't want to know any
more. "I *KNOW* I was made by God, and I live for HIS purposes, what
they are God knows..."
Most never come back to talk to me again, they know I know and that
bothers them no end. They wonder what else I might know.
One night last November we were invited to dinner by some closish
friends of Jane. Both husband and wife were non religious meatballs,
but very much into academentia and erudition.
So I start to take the guy to task about some very simple issues
like forgotten choices to forget choices to be born etc, and we went on
for hours. We talked about the absolute lack of evidence for anything
behond this life in his entire life experience.
And he kept asking why in would anyone CHOOSE to be born?
He finally said he couldn't wrap his wits around any of it, and
admitted he hadn't ever even thought about having lived before or living
again.
That's shallower than a dry river bed.
The next morning he woke up dead, er didn't wake up because he WAS
dead.
During the middle of the night, he took a too hard look at the
possibility of having chosen to not know, and it killed him dead.
Coincidence?
Remember the Richard Kitchen comic book that had the story of this
poor guy on the back in about 31 frames. From birth to death the guy
was struggling through life with a big question mark above his head.
Then he dies in the 30th frame. Then in the 31st frame he
momentarily wakes up with a huge exclamation mark over his head, then
dies again.
Been dealing with the widow ever since.
The material over 40 years has made me so sick I might as well be
living in a morgue and might make it there yet.
"Send my mail to the end of the trail...", the morgue or some house
of dementia.
Imagine making a whole auditorium start puking or exteriorizing or
keeling over by simply talking about the process of perfect certainty
through a self luminous scalar? Something that was a non temporal non
space process, where causation of perception could be seen directly?
What is the color of agency anyhow?
You can see the red and the green sitting out there next to each
other, but can you see the existence of the CAUSE between the red and
your ability to SEE the red and the green and know they are different
That's incoming cause during simple perception of color form.
No machine can do that, because it can never see what it is
looking at, only a messenger wave it received from it, who knows
where the messenger wave came from.
The messenger you may trust but the King who sent him is always a
theory.
If you put out a mockup of color in front of you can you see the
outgoing cause you are generating as your self conscious self to put the
red mockup there?
That's out going cause.
Machines can't do that either, they can't see cause, cause is a
theory to them only.
You can't see cause in the physical universe, but you sure can see
cause in your own consiousness.
Machines an only learn about objects in the presence of emissions
from the objects they want to learn about.
Red and Green conscious experiences are Zero Emmission phenomenon,
and therefore timeless and spaceless to boot.
There is always time in the physical universe between the King and
the arrival of the messenger emission, and by the time the messenger
arrives THE KING IS LONG GONE, at least the one that issued the message.
In a zero emission process, one is looking at the cause directly,
one SEES THE KING, not some messenger, and the existence of the King IS
the seeing of the King, and so there is no time in the process of
perception, and you can see this and verify it and know it is true with
perfect certainty.
If there is any space or time between the looker and the looked-at
the looked-at would not be seeable.
Looking directly at cause is called direct perception.
Looking at messenger effectgs is called indirect perception.
The physical universe runs on indirect perception at all times.
The conscious universe runs on direct perception at all times.
Thus the facility of perfect certainty is also the facility of
direct perception of cause, not indirect perception of cause by looking
at effects.
Ron Hubbard thought that some things shouldn't be talked about
because they can kill some people. I have come to think he is right.
Most people can't conceive of something so dangerous that to even
think about it could make them permanently ill or kill them dead through
a racing heart or blown up brain.
But neither can they consider the choice to forget a choice to be
born as a human and how much anger there is around that subject.
WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD CHOOSE TO BE A HUMAN WHO THOUGHT THEY
LIVED ONLY ONCE AND DIED ONLY ONCE?
So we are left with the possibility that between lives, spirits who
are seeking incarnation are COMPLETELY SCREAMING INSANE, wanting to die
and not being able to, except to pretend they WILL die someday by
pretending they ARE something that can and will die for sure, the body.
Pull up the murderous rage surrounding these subjects on some
people and they just explode all their fuses all at once trying to keep
it under control and act it out at the same time.
They don't know who to kill, but will die trying to find out!
People are so mad at their own view of the world, I don't care what
it is, God or Mammon, they have chernobyled it in so much emotional
concrete that there is nothing there any more, just "Hi how are you?
Fine, thank you."
Not.
That's two stupid Earthlings lying to each other desperately trying
to avoid having a near life experience.
And now I going to wake them up to their real feelings, wanting to
drown in the blood of their enemies?
God is not a god of love, he is a god of love AND hate, beauty AND
ugly, adoration AND abomination, and the soul is that god in carnation
under its own choice.
The Soul can not confront what it has made of itself, nor what it
was when it made it self that way.
Two strikes and you are out.
Thus we are stuck in a universe, in a body, in being human, which
looks ok to a human until he wakes up one day and realizes that being
human is about as inhuman and unhuman as it comes.
NO *HUMAN* would ever choose to become a human.
So what then did chose such an abomination for itself?
What chose is scarier than what it chose to be, so people remain
what they chose to be, human, as the final safe solution to never being
again what they were when they WANTED to be human and choose to be so.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, dunbarx@aol.com wrote:
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Oct 26 19:23:18 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore984.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFWLrXmURT1lqxE3HERAsQRAJ9GXZ0CBdzqMWhCm9tnzyIIs7FIKACfWXLo
Pvpm4kb5kK8E67yHLvDp6k8=
=m/z9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
PHD's AND THE PROOF, typos fixed.
PhD's AND THE PROOF
> What do the philosophy of science types at Cornell think about the proof?
> You must have shown it to them and sat, arms folded, waiting for them to
> comment...
Nope, I have failed too many times with the PhD's, they are
meatballs through and through.
It KILLS them to try to look at their conscious rendition AS a
conscious rendition rather than as the physical object it purports to
be.
I asked a Math Professor once if one cut open the brain would one
see any 'red' there. He said "Of course there would be lots of red,
there would be red blood all over the place."
The idea of a scalar operating actuality exceeds their willingness
to look.
To them love and shame can of protein, fat and sugar be made :)
Remember Theory 2 is a THEORY. It may get stated in strong
assertions, but in the end the test is in the pudding.
Einstein lived on thought experiments, so we do also.
Imagine a full exteriorization from the body, easy to prove if it
happens strongly enough.
One can nag about where are the people who can do this, as if
surely they would want the world to know.
And we can nag back about being a weapon of war and prime
directives to protect ourselves and our loved ones.
But beyond that what does a full provable exteriorization say about
physics, to be able to see the world without eyes and lens, and live
again as we have lived before, not just on earth but many other places
and other universes?
That physics is wrong?
Or that it is virtual?
Love and shame can not of force and mass be made, neither can pain,
Trying to get a unified theory of everything that contains only
forces and masses will never explain consciousness.
And since perfect certainty is only possible in a self luminous scalar
object (ZEV, Zero Emission Visuals), they had better start figuring out
how to connect a scalar object into a multi manifold object like the brain
in order to maintain that the multi manifold object (physical universe)
exists at all.
Since there is NO evidence and CAN NOT BE any evidence whatsoever
that the physical universe actually exists, one might as well not
bother to assert it does and work with the virtualization theory
instead.
That's Occams Sharpening Strap, don't assert what you can PROVE
you CAN NEVER PROVE.
The produced results of a mature virtualization theory should be
stupendous once one figures out how we create a dream as creator and get
stuck in it as creature.
The responsibility for our own condition is too high for most
meatballs.
"Who me? I CHOSE? How DARE! you. say such a thing."
One can not learn with certainty about A (alleged actual space time)
by looking at B (conscious rendition of space and time).
My only certainty about Theory 1 and Theory 2 is that there IS a valid
Theory 2 that stands with equal stature to Theory 1, and by now probably
exceeds it by a few orders of magnitude.
Enough so that I have long ago stopped worry about death forever,
and now worry about hell forever :)
Homer
Mon Oct 26 15:23:33 EDT 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
> What do the philosophy of science types at Cornell think about the proof?
> You must have shown it to them and sat, arms folded, waiting for them to
> comment...
Nope, I have failed too many times with the PhD's, they are
meatballs through and through.
It KILLS them to try to look at their conscious rendition AS a
conscious rendition rather than as the physical object it purports to
be.
I asked a Math Professor once if one cut open the brain would one
see any 'red' there. He said "Of course there would be lots of red,
there would be red blood all over the place."
The idea of a scalar operating actuality exceeds their willingness
to look.
To them love and shame can of protein, fat and sugar be made :)
Remember Theory 2 is a THEORY. It may get stated in strong
assertions, but in the end the test is in the pudding.
Einstein lived on thought experiments, so we do also.
Imagine a full exteriorization from the body, easy to prove if it
happens strongly enough.
One can nag about where are the people who can do this, as if
surely they would want the world to know.
And we can nag back about being a weapon of war and prime
directives to protect ourselves and our loved ones.
But beyond that what does a full provable exteriorization say about
physics, to be able to see the world without eyes and lens, and live
again as we have lived before, not just on earth but many other places
and other universes?
That physics is wrong?
Or that it is virtual?
Love and shame can not of force and mass be made, neither can pain,
Trying to get a unified theory of everything that contains only
forces and masses will never explain consciousness.
And since perfect certainty is only possible in a self luminous scalar
object (ZEV, Zero Emission Visuals), they had better start figuring out
how to connect a scalar object into a multi manifold object like the brain
in order to maintain that the multi manifold object (physical universe)
exists at all.
Since there is NO evidence and CAN NOT BE any evidence whatsoever
that the physical universe actually exists, one might as well not
bother to assert it does and work with the virtualization theory
instead.
That's Occams Sharpening Strap, don't assert what you can PROVE
you CAN NEVER PROVE.
The produced results of a mature virtualization theory should be
stupendous once one figures out how we create a dream as creator and get
stuck in it as creature.
The responsibility for our own condition is too high for most
meatballs.
"Who me? I CHOSE? How DARE! you. say such a thing."
One can not learn with certainty about A (alleged actual space time)
by looking at B (conscious rendition of space and time).
My only certainty about Theory 1 and Theory 2 is that there IS a valid
Theory 2 that stands with equal stature to Theory 1, and by now probably
exceeds it by a few orders of magnitude.
Enough so that I have long ago stopped worry about death forever,
and now worry about hell forever :)
Homer
Mon Oct 26 15:23:33 EDT 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ucp6.memo (fwd)
Here is more from the 40 page post that no body read,
with some added.
Homer
>SEE MY LIST ABOVE, WHICH YOU ARE
>ARE STEADFASTLY NOT-ISING.
Those aren't fundamentals.
Everyone conceeds that the linguistic objectifications of
Dianetics are bogus, first generation gropings for a better view.
The word engrams isn't even listed in the primary Axioms of
Scientology, and *I* am talking about fundamentals of clearing, and
sessioning etc.
Like a real fundamental of Scn would be the opening logics
and axioms.
Do you disagree that AS-ISness is a vanishing truth?
Do you disagree that Alter-isness results in a persisting
ISNESS?
Do you disagree that 2 way live communication helps a pc
as-is his masses and ridges?
Do you disagree that what you resist you get?
Do you disagree that the being's case is made of up
no-communication, problems, withholds, arc breaks and make wrongs?
Do you disagree that getting any pc to view as-is the source and
true nature of any condition will cause it to vanish if the pc no
longer wants it?
Do you disagree that charge builds when we want something and
can't have it or don't want something and must have it?
Do you disagree that insanity is must reach can't reach, must
withdraw can't withdraw?
Do you agree that having one's anchor points held away from one
is ridicule, and having them pushed in against one is betrayal?
Do you disagree that insanity starts at the moment a being
becomes totally devoted to stopping something he considers he didn't
start?
Do you disagree with the basic definitions of the lower 8
dynamics?
Do you disagree that all ARC breaks stem from missed withholds?
Do you disagree that problems are intention - counter intention?
Do you disagree that problems are solutions?
>You are not MY BTs.
>You are not my case.
>You and your unreality are very real.
Well *MY* BT's are unreal to you, that's for sure.
I would think that if your BT's are unreal to you, or you think
they don't exist or are unimportant to pay attention to and audit,
that mine couldn't be real to you.
So my BT's feel very invalidated around you, because you are
going "You do not exist, you are unimportant, Homer should take his
attention off of you and don't audit you, and put it somewhere more
worthwhile."
My BT's aren't happy with that.
>You and Hell Rum Scumbag have
>demonstrated the fantastic case
>progress available from blaming
>your case on Body Thetans.
BT's are not about blaming case on them. Blame of BT's or ANY
OTHER BEINGS OR THING, IS part of case and needs to addressed and run
out. People who 'have no BT's', well maybe they don't, or maybe they
are below blaming BT's and into denial and co excused witholds with
BT's and the oblivion that results.
BT's are just other beings collectively, when you run UCP you
come up with charge and events on other beings. When you run UCP
with other beings, THEY come up with charge and events on other
beings.
So BT's are just more other beings, one needs to run the charge
one has on them out, and then run UCP with them also so they can be
free of their charge on you.
I mean really, if you have a swarm of angry BT's buzzing in your
space, its like having a bee's nest for a pillow, its *REAL*.
So first one needs to spot the bee's next, and run out the charge
that sticks one compusively to it so one is crushing the BT's into
oblivion, then one needs to run out their charge and their sticking to
you, until both sides can be self determined about joining forces or
going their separate ways etc.
If you are a Churchie of course the BT's want out of there as
fast as possible.
It's really a matter of closing terminals.
It's fine to stop closing terminals with others, but it's also
nice to get them to stop closing terminals with you and get some team
work and cooperation going between you.
Stuck to, merely means conpulsively TOO CLOSE. One doesn't get
rid of BT's, one frees you and them to make their own decisions.
There is a tremendous holding onness, and crushingness between
'stuck' beings, that builds permanent mass. Auditing other beings in
general handles this mass, but other beings includes much more than
merely the incarnate people that you have known in this life.
BT's are just the entire subject of other beings. They can even
be *INCARNATE*. For example I would bet almost all people have direct
telepathic connections to other beings in bodies all over the planet
and maybe even the universe. Perhaps they live on the other side of
the planet or another city, but they get a headache, so do you. It is
their headache you are feeling, maybe you are causing it in them cuz
you are pissed at THEM!
When beings are in telpathic communication with each other and
don't know it, they are constantly taking things as their own which
aren't, and getting into wars 'with themselves' which are really wars
with others, which get them into fighting back etc.
Once one catches on to this inter weave of beings, one can start
to make case gain in certain areas where before it was impossible or
'too weird', because the LRH fundamental of misownership causing
solidity and persistence was out.
One's case does not stand alone, one's case stands in relation to
other beings, both carnate and dis incarnate, both from the past, the
present and the future, both near and far.
One's case is ABOUT others (yes and oneself) but mostly about
others!
One does not resolve one's case without also resolving who or
what it was in relation to.
Thus to audit one's case, one needs to audit the relationships
that all that mass and ridging and charge is about.
So one does UCP solo or with a witness and handles all that
charge with all beings everywhere, then one acts as a witness for
other beings, including disincarnate ones and telepathic one's etc.
Usually it is much more fruitbul than auditing some random neighbor
because you don't have a case with your neighbor.
Each being has a huge inter weave of *SPECIFIC* other beings they
have been, are and will be in relation to. That is the basic
fundamental underlying UCP.
"Where have you been?" is actually
"Who have you been in relation to?"
"Who are you in relation to?"
"Compare the two."
etc.
So the first order of business is to audit that inter weave of
beings you have been, are and will be in relation to, and after that
is all handled, audit your neighbor or some random public from the
street. Remember HE needs to audit HIS interweave.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Oct 26 06:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/ucp/ucp6.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
with some added.
Homer
>SEE MY LIST ABOVE, WHICH YOU ARE
>ARE STEADFASTLY NOT-ISING.
Those aren't fundamentals.
Everyone conceeds that the linguistic objectifications of
Dianetics are bogus, first generation gropings for a better view.
The word engrams isn't even listed in the primary Axioms of
Scientology, and *I* am talking about fundamentals of clearing, and
sessioning etc.
Like a real fundamental of Scn would be the opening logics
and axioms.
Do you disagree that AS-ISness is a vanishing truth?
Do you disagree that Alter-isness results in a persisting
ISNESS?
Do you disagree that 2 way live communication helps a pc
as-is his masses and ridges?
Do you disagree that what you resist you get?
Do you disagree that the being's case is made of up
no-communication, problems, withholds, arc breaks and make wrongs?
Do you disagree that getting any pc to view as-is the source and
true nature of any condition will cause it to vanish if the pc no
longer wants it?
Do you disagree that charge builds when we want something and
can't have it or don't want something and must have it?
Do you disagree that insanity is must reach can't reach, must
withdraw can't withdraw?
Do you agree that having one's anchor points held away from one
is ridicule, and having them pushed in against one is betrayal?
Do you disagree that insanity starts at the moment a being
becomes totally devoted to stopping something he considers he didn't
start?
Do you disagree with the basic definitions of the lower 8
dynamics?
Do you disagree that all ARC breaks stem from missed withholds?
Do you disagree that problems are intention - counter intention?
Do you disagree that problems are solutions?
>You are not MY BTs.
>You are not my case.
>You and your unreality are very real.
Well *MY* BT's are unreal to you, that's for sure.
I would think that if your BT's are unreal to you, or you think
they don't exist or are unimportant to pay attention to and audit,
that mine couldn't be real to you.
So my BT's feel very invalidated around you, because you are
going "You do not exist, you are unimportant, Homer should take his
attention off of you and don't audit you, and put it somewhere more
worthwhile."
My BT's aren't happy with that.
>You and Hell Rum Scumbag have
>demonstrated the fantastic case
>progress available from blaming
>your case on Body Thetans.
BT's are not about blaming case on them. Blame of BT's or ANY
OTHER BEINGS OR THING, IS part of case and needs to addressed and run
out. People who 'have no BT's', well maybe they don't, or maybe they
are below blaming BT's and into denial and co excused witholds with
BT's and the oblivion that results.
BT's are just other beings collectively, when you run UCP you
come up with charge and events on other beings. When you run UCP
with other beings, THEY come up with charge and events on other
beings.
So BT's are just more other beings, one needs to run the charge
one has on them out, and then run UCP with them also so they can be
free of their charge on you.
I mean really, if you have a swarm of angry BT's buzzing in your
space, its like having a bee's nest for a pillow, its *REAL*.
So first one needs to spot the bee's next, and run out the charge
that sticks one compusively to it so one is crushing the BT's into
oblivion, then one needs to run out their charge and their sticking to
you, until both sides can be self determined about joining forces or
going their separate ways etc.
If you are a Churchie of course the BT's want out of there as
fast as possible.
It's really a matter of closing terminals.
It's fine to stop closing terminals with others, but it's also
nice to get them to stop closing terminals with you and get some team
work and cooperation going between you.
Stuck to, merely means conpulsively TOO CLOSE. One doesn't get
rid of BT's, one frees you and them to make their own decisions.
There is a tremendous holding onness, and crushingness between
'stuck' beings, that builds permanent mass. Auditing other beings in
general handles this mass, but other beings includes much more than
merely the incarnate people that you have known in this life.
BT's are just the entire subject of other beings. They can even
be *INCARNATE*. For example I would bet almost all people have direct
telepathic connections to other beings in bodies all over the planet
and maybe even the universe. Perhaps they live on the other side of
the planet or another city, but they get a headache, so do you. It is
their headache you are feeling, maybe you are causing it in them cuz
you are pissed at THEM!
When beings are in telpathic communication with each other and
don't know it, they are constantly taking things as their own which
aren't, and getting into wars 'with themselves' which are really wars
with others, which get them into fighting back etc.
Once one catches on to this inter weave of beings, one can start
to make case gain in certain areas where before it was impossible or
'too weird', because the LRH fundamental of misownership causing
solidity and persistence was out.
One's case does not stand alone, one's case stands in relation to
other beings, both carnate and dis incarnate, both from the past, the
present and the future, both near and far.
One's case is ABOUT others (yes and oneself) but mostly about
others!
One does not resolve one's case without also resolving who or
what it was in relation to.
Thus to audit one's case, one needs to audit the relationships
that all that mass and ridging and charge is about.
So one does UCP solo or with a witness and handles all that
charge with all beings everywhere, then one acts as a witness for
other beings, including disincarnate ones and telepathic one's etc.
Usually it is much more fruitbul than auditing some random neighbor
because you don't have a case with your neighbor.
Each being has a huge inter weave of *SPECIFIC* other beings they
have been, are and will be in relation to. That is the basic
fundamental underlying UCP.
"Where have you been?" is actually
"Who have you been in relation to?"
"Who are you in relation to?"
"Compare the two."
etc.
So the first order of business is to audit that inter weave of
beings you have been, are and will be in relation to, and after that
is all handled, audit your neighbor or some random public from the
street. Remember HE needs to audit HIS interweave.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Oct 26 06:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/ucp/ucp6.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Re: ETERNAL vs IMMORTAL (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
PhD's AND THE PROOF
> What do the philosophy of science types at Cornell think about the proof?
> You must have shown it to them and sat, arms folded, waiting for them to
> comment...
Nope, I have failed too many times with the PhD's, they are meatballs
through and through.
It KILLS them to try to look at their condition rendition AS a
conscioius rendition rather than as the physical object it purports to be.
I asked a Math Professor once if one cut open the brain would one
see any 'red' there. He said "Of course there would be lots of red, there
would be red blood all over the place."
The idea of a scalar operating actuality exceeds their willingness
to look.
To them love and shame can of protein, fat and sugar be made :)
Remember Theory 2 is a THEORY. It may get stated in strong
assertions, but in the end the test is in the pudding.
Einstein lived on thought experiments, so we do also.
Imagine a full exteriorization from the body, easy to prove if it
happens strongly enough.
One can nag about where are the people who can do this, as if surely
they would want the world to know.
And we can nag back about being a weapon of war and prime directives
to protect ourselves and our loved ones.
But beyond that what does a full provable exteriorization say about
physics, to be able to see the world without eyes and lens, and live again
as we have lived before, not just on earth but many other places and other
universes?
That physics is wrong?
Or that it is virtual?
Love and shame can not of force and mass be made, neither can pain,
Trying to get a unified theory of everything that contains only
forces and masses will never explain consciousness.
And since perfect certainty is only possible in a self luminous scalar
object (ZEV, Zero Emission Visuals), they had better start figuring out
how to connect a scalar object into a multi manifold object like the brain
in order to maintain that the multi manifold object (physical universe)
exists at all.
Since there is NO evidence and CAN NOT BE any evidence whatsoever
that the physical universe actually exists, one might as well not
bother to assert it does and work with the virtualization theory
instead.
That's Occams Sharpening Strap, don't assert what you can PROVE
you CAN NEVER PROVE.
The produced results of a mature virtualization theory should be
stupendous once one figures out how we create a dream as creator and get
stuck in it as creature.
The responsibility for our own condition is too high for most
meatballs.
"Who me? I CHOSE? How DARE! you. say such a thing."
One can not learn with certainty about A (alleged actual space time)
by looking at B (conscious rendition of space and time).
My only certainty about Theory 1 and Theory 2 is that there IS a valid
Theory 2 that stands with equal stature to Theory 1, and by now probably
exceeds it by a few orders of magnitude.
Enough so that I have long ago stopped worry about death forever,
and now worry about hell forever :)
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Oct 26 15:23:34 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore983.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFWLn22URT1lqxE3HERApXUAJ41U4R4jvDG3i1g6KB6t0igHl57wwCeOeOi
RO+igLG6FjUYvqwsx1nfqDw=
=xThb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
PhD's AND THE PROOF
> What do the philosophy of science types at Cornell think about the proof?
> You must have shown it to them and sat, arms folded, waiting for them to
> comment...
Nope, I have failed too many times with the PhD's, they are meatballs
through and through.
It KILLS them to try to look at their condition rendition AS a
conscioius rendition rather than as the physical object it purports to be.
I asked a Math Professor once if one cut open the brain would one
see any 'red' there. He said "Of course there would be lots of red, there
would be red blood all over the place."
The idea of a scalar operating actuality exceeds their willingness
to look.
To them love and shame can of protein, fat and sugar be made :)
Remember Theory 2 is a THEORY. It may get stated in strong
assertions, but in the end the test is in the pudding.
Einstein lived on thought experiments, so we do also.
Imagine a full exteriorization from the body, easy to prove if it
happens strongly enough.
One can nag about where are the people who can do this, as if surely
they would want the world to know.
And we can nag back about being a weapon of war and prime directives
to protect ourselves and our loved ones.
But beyond that what does a full provable exteriorization say about
physics, to be able to see the world without eyes and lens, and live again
as we have lived before, not just on earth but many other places and other
universes?
That physics is wrong?
Or that it is virtual?
Love and shame can not of force and mass be made, neither can pain,
Trying to get a unified theory of everything that contains only
forces and masses will never explain consciousness.
And since perfect certainty is only possible in a self luminous scalar
object (ZEV, Zero Emission Visuals), they had better start figuring out
how to connect a scalar object into a multi manifold object like the brain
in order to maintain that the multi manifold object (physical universe)
exists at all.
Since there is NO evidence and CAN NOT BE any evidence whatsoever
that the physical universe actually exists, one might as well not
bother to assert it does and work with the virtualization theory
instead.
That's Occams Sharpening Strap, don't assert what you can PROVE
you CAN NEVER PROVE.
The produced results of a mature virtualization theory should be
stupendous once one figures out how we create a dream as creator and get
stuck in it as creature.
The responsibility for our own condition is too high for most
meatballs.
"Who me? I CHOSE? How DARE! you. say such a thing."
One can not learn with certainty about A (alleged actual space time)
by looking at B (conscious rendition of space and time).
My only certainty about Theory 1 and Theory 2 is that there IS a valid
Theory 2 that stands with equal stature to Theory 1, and by now probably
exceeds it by a few orders of magnitude.
Enough so that I have long ago stopped worry about death forever,
and now worry about hell forever :)
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Oct 26 15:23:34 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore983.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFWLn22URT1lqxE3HERApXUAJ41U4R4jvDG3i1g6KB6t0igHl57wwCeOeOi
RO+igLG6FjUYvqwsx1nfqDw=
=xThb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, October 25, 2015
ADORE517 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
RADIUS OF MURDER
ted_crammer@hotmail.com wrote:
>Homer, you are mind broke. That's your god-self telling your little
>jerkoff meat self to survive and be self-determined about it as long as
>it can because it hasn't yet reached JOY. (Joke's On You)
How can a meat body reach JOY?
Radius of murder is defined as the radius around any being in
which at least one death/murder/suicide/torture is happening at all
times.
What's your radius of murder?
What's your radius of JOY?
How closed down does one have to be to not be impinged upon by
other's suffering and screams?
How big does one have to be for the screams to be drowned out by
the roar of the stars?
Good friend of mine 4 days ago was in a car accident while GOING
to an accident as an emergency medic, he got side swiped by a drunk
and crashed, breaking his L2 spine vertebra.
I cried. I am supposed to be happy? All my friends are hanging
on crosses.
Are you off yours?
3 years ago, this same guy was on emergency alert, and the name
of his own son came in over the call, dead of a broken neck in a car
crash the kid wasn't even driving.
You get the joke?
Got a nail remover?
I will buy, what's the price?
Any warrantees of survivability of humor over real time?
Homer
Tue Jun 19 19:33:32 EDT 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Oct 25 12:06:01 EDT 2015
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore517.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFWLP3qURT1lqxE3HERAkeIAJ9q1uVWM8dQwg3G5hxPzMwadKzljQCgnAND
VHlnTLh6qSHmir9JIQdxAmk=
=g4ch
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
RADIUS OF MURDER
ted_crammer@hotmail.com wrote:
>Homer, you are mind broke. That's your god-self telling your little
>jerkoff meat self to survive and be self-determined about it as long as
>it can because it hasn't yet reached JOY. (Joke's On You)
How can a meat body reach JOY?
Radius of murder is defined as the radius around any being in
which at least one death/murder/suicide/torture is happening at all
times.
What's your radius of murder?
What's your radius of JOY?
How closed down does one have to be to not be impinged upon by
other's suffering and screams?
How big does one have to be for the screams to be drowned out by
the roar of the stars?
Good friend of mine 4 days ago was in a car accident while GOING
to an accident as an emergency medic, he got side swiped by a drunk
and crashed, breaking his L2 spine vertebra.
I cried. I am supposed to be happy? All my friends are hanging
on crosses.
Are you off yours?
3 years ago, this same guy was on emergency alert, and the name
of his own son came in over the call, dead of a broken neck in a car
crash the kid wasn't even driving.
You get the joke?
Got a nail remover?
I will buy, what's the price?
Any warrantees of survivability of humor over real time?
Homer
Tue Jun 19 19:33:32 EDT 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Oct 25 12:06:01 EDT 2015
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore517.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFWLP3qURT1lqxE3HERAkeIAJ9q1uVWM8dQwg3G5hxPzMwadKzljQCgnAND
VHlnTLh6qSHmir9JIQdxAmk=
=g4ch
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, October 23, 2015
INVITE and DISINVITE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
INVITE and DISINVITE
> So who the hell are you, and what are you doing in my dream?
Co-resonant desire to play a game of magnitude connected by a generic
invite to all who want to play, and a unanimous agreement to play.
Psychosis and neurosis are mostly failed disinvites, and refusal to
admit and re-operate the prior invite first.
We can't get rid of what we consider we did not invite in, and are
refusing to put there.
The disinvite must match the invite in order to poof something or
someone out of the unanimous agreement to have the game.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Oct 23 16:38:05 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore982.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFWKpqtURT1lqxE3HERAqHzAJ9D0wtF3x/Pe19WOWPwwHlGbBu7YACgkHk4
39pSS/4soGuGAstQC/lWvuI=
=cF4a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
INVITE and DISINVITE
> So who the hell are you, and what are you doing in my dream?
Co-resonant desire to play a game of magnitude connected by a generic
invite to all who want to play, and a unanimous agreement to play.
Psychosis and neurosis are mostly failed disinvites, and refusal to
admit and re-operate the prior invite first.
We can't get rid of what we consider we did not invite in, and are
refusing to put there.
The disinvite must match the invite in order to poof something or
someone out of the unanimous agreement to have the game.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Oct 23 16:38:05 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore982.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFWKpqtURT1lqxE3HERAqHzAJ9D0wtF3x/Pe19WOWPwwHlGbBu7YACgkHk4
39pSS/4soGuGAstQC/lWvuI=
=cF4a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
FAITH vs CERTAINTY
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
FAITH vs CERTAINTY
Faith is a waste of time in a world powered by perfect certainties.
Arguing about the existence of god is a waste of time because all
consiousness is god in carnation.
Beyond that there is no god to be had, and if there were one could
never know about it with certainty.
Theorem 0: Learning with perfect certainty across two different
objects is impossible.
Lemma 0: If God and Soul are two different objects they would
forever remain a theory to each other.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Oct 23 16:30:22 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore981.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFWKpjeURT1lqxE3HERAuaFAKDWMdoaJMacCvBmyQ7nKNYeVJQGEwCfWsD3
IWog7qYj9oI90WLICZNCCf4=
=CfNa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
FAITH vs CERTAINTY
Faith is a waste of time in a world powered by perfect certainties.
Arguing about the existence of god is a waste of time because all
consiousness is god in carnation.
Beyond that there is no god to be had, and if there were one could
never know about it with certainty.
Theorem 0: Learning with perfect certainty across two different
objects is impossible.
Lemma 0: If God and Soul are two different objects they would
forever remain a theory to each other.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Oct 23 16:30:22 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore981.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFWKpjeURT1lqxE3HERAuaFAKDWMdoaJMacCvBmyQ7nKNYeVJQGEwCfWsD3
IWog7qYj9oI90WLICZNCCf4=
=CfNa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ETERNAL vs IMMORTAL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
ETERNAL vs IMMORTAL
> Oh,well, at least I am immortal.
Eternal, not immortal.
Important distinction, immortal means stuck forever in one time stream,
that's hell forever no matter how good it is.
Eternal means above space and time, and can create, enter, get stuckl
in and ultimately leave FINITE whiles in space and time as often as
wished, all by choice.
Theory 2, the dreamball theory, involves a new kind of infinity called
an unlimited finiteness.
The being can not create an infinite number of anything finite, but has
no upper finite limit on how many he can create.
Thus he can't have an infinite amount of marbles or space or time
at one time, but there is no upper finite limit to the number he can have.
The only exceptions to this are
1.) There are an infinite number of potential beings, each a full
instantion of the Eternal Infinite in carnation but only a finite number
can incarnate at one time in one finite time stream.
2.) At any one 'time' there may be an infinite or finite number of
independent non interacting whiles in operation.
3.) Through out all of Eternity, there have already been an infinite
number of whiles created, played out, and erased with no trace of their
existence left. And there will be an infinite more number of whiles
moving forward.
Thus all universes end one day, the being returns to eternal sleep for
a while and then sallys forth again with a co resonant game with other
beings of like mind, but again only a finite number of players at a time.
The above statement of course is a major oxymoron, as past and future
don't make much sense when taking about a timeless super cause, but then
its no worse than the garbage that passes for quantum mechanics or
special relativity.
If our main theories of the all that is are not made of axiomatic
oxymorons, they probably aren't right :)
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Oct 23 16:29:09 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore980.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFWKpiWURT1lqxE3HERAv18AJ9/GUSFvBpxngZCG6RXBX8JJQV1sQCaAjaY
ILQ+mxA0tZRd0wy1tm06OPw=
=K21o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
ETERNAL vs IMMORTAL
> Oh,well, at least I am immortal.
Eternal, not immortal.
Important distinction, immortal means stuck forever in one time stream,
that's hell forever no matter how good it is.
Eternal means above space and time, and can create, enter, get stuckl
in and ultimately leave FINITE whiles in space and time as often as
wished, all by choice.
Theory 2, the dreamball theory, involves a new kind of infinity called
an unlimited finiteness.
The being can not create an infinite number of anything finite, but has
no upper finite limit on how many he can create.
Thus he can't have an infinite amount of marbles or space or time
at one time, but there is no upper finite limit to the number he can have.
The only exceptions to this are
1.) There are an infinite number of potential beings, each a full
instantion of the Eternal Infinite in carnation but only a finite number
can incarnate at one time in one finite time stream.
2.) At any one 'time' there may be an infinite or finite number of
independent non interacting whiles in operation.
3.) Through out all of Eternity, there have already been an infinite
number of whiles created, played out, and erased with no trace of their
existence left. And there will be an infinite more number of whiles
moving forward.
Thus all universes end one day, the being returns to eternal sleep for
a while and then sallys forth again with a co resonant game with other
beings of like mind, but again only a finite number of players at a time.
The above statement of course is a major oxymoron, as past and future
don't make much sense when taking about a timeless super cause, but then
its no worse than the garbage that passes for quantum mechanics or
special relativity.
If our main theories of the all that is are not made of axiomatic
oxymorons, they probably aren't right :)
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Oct 23 16:29:09 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore980.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFWKpiWURT1lqxE3HERAv18AJ9/GUSFvBpxngZCG6RXBX8JJQV1sQCaAjaY
ILQ+mxA0tZRd0wy1tm06OPw=
=K21o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, October 22, 2015
ADORE571 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
LOGIC AND PERFECT CERTAINTY
Logic *IS* a description of the nature of *IS*.
IS is IS.
IS isnot ISNOT.
ISNOT is ISNOT.
ISNOT isnot IS.
IS is a description of the nature of consciousness.
Conscoiusness is perfect certainty of itself and its own IS.
Thus logic, being a description of the perfect certainty of IS, is
perfectly certain.
The fact that non well formed statements can be made in logic whose
truth values are undecidable, does not in any way invalidate the perfect
certainty of those well formed statements in logic whose truth values are
decidable.
Godel jail is reserved for those who try to make philosophies
out of self contradicting or otherwise undecidable statements.
True or false?
"There are no absolutes."
"All generalizations are false."
"Logic is illogical."
"Logic can prove that logic is unprovable or wrong."
"You can't prove anything."
"This statement is true."
"This statement is false."
"This statement is uncertain."
"This statement is undecidable."
"Is the class of all classes that are not members of themselves,
a member of itself?"
"Is the class of all classes that ARE members of themselves, a member
of itself?"
"IS is ISNOT."
"ISNOT is IS."
"Any statment that uses the word IS, is wrong."
"Gradient scale logic *IS* more true than bi valued logic."
"Certainty is certainly impossible".
"I am uncertain if I am uncertain!"
"I dont know if I am certain or not."
"I doubt that I doubt."
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Thu Feb 28 00:31:34 EST 2008
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Oct 22 12:06:01 EDT 2015
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore571.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFWKQlpURT1lqxE3HERAjlCAKChS7F/ln2mLlX/LhEstl3gUapzsQCfUtS7
tdRFEU0x8GpQ2HBbhOC44lQ=
=Smh5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
LOGIC AND PERFECT CERTAINTY
Logic *IS* a description of the nature of *IS*.
IS is IS.
IS isnot ISNOT.
ISNOT is ISNOT.
ISNOT isnot IS.
IS is a description of the nature of consciousness.
Conscoiusness is perfect certainty of itself and its own IS.
Thus logic, being a description of the perfect certainty of IS, is
perfectly certain.
The fact that non well formed statements can be made in logic whose
truth values are undecidable, does not in any way invalidate the perfect
certainty of those well formed statements in logic whose truth values are
decidable.
Godel jail is reserved for those who try to make philosophies
out of self contradicting or otherwise undecidable statements.
True or false?
"There are no absolutes."
"All generalizations are false."
"Logic is illogical."
"Logic can prove that logic is unprovable or wrong."
"You can't prove anything."
"This statement is true."
"This statement is false."
"This statement is uncertain."
"This statement is undecidable."
"Is the class of all classes that are not members of themselves,
a member of itself?"
"Is the class of all classes that ARE members of themselves, a member
of itself?"
"IS is ISNOT."
"ISNOT is IS."
"Any statment that uses the word IS, is wrong."
"Gradient scale logic *IS* more true than bi valued logic."
"Certainty is certainly impossible".
"I am uncertain if I am uncertain!"
"I dont know if I am certain or not."
"I doubt that I doubt."
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Thu Feb 28 00:31:34 EST 2008
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Oct 22 12:06:01 EDT 2015
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore571.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFWKQlpURT1lqxE3HERAjlCAKChS7F/ln2mLlX/LhEstl3gUapzsQCfUtS7
tdRFEU0x8GpQ2HBbhOC44lQ=
=Smh5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
ADORE659 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
GOD AND CONSCIOUSNESS
Now many of us like to believe that God doesn't exist, because we
know damn well that if God did exist he belongs in jail for child abuse.
But perhaps God The Father is not the proper concept of God, maybe
God does exist anyhow, he just doesn't give a damn about your sorry ass,
and he is a lot bigger than any of us have ever imagined.
Or perhaps we ARE God in carnation and we still don't give a damn
about our sorry ass. In either case, expecting anything of God out
there is bypassing the power of God right here where we are.
I have said my prayers to God always come back to me marked as spam
from his spam trap, with a little note that says 'Do it yourself.'
So we have to ask ourselves a couple of questions about God.
The first question is:
If God exists, is he made out of matter, energy, space and time?
Well probably not, God is supposed to have CREATED matter, energy,
space and time, and so he couldn't be made of it himself.
Thus God exists outside of matter, energy, space and time, which
immediately makes him meta physical rather than physical, living up in
the Realm of Eternum, and certainly not to be found by looking deeper
into the physical universe of parts and pieces, tick tocks and
machinery.
The second question is:
If God exists, is he conscious?
Well if he is conscious, his consciousness certainly isn't made of
matter, energy, space and time either.
The third question is:
If God's consciousness is not made of matter, energy, space and
time, why would we ever think that OUR consciousness is made of matter,
energy, space and time?
Consciousness is consciousness, either it is a mechanical process
or it isn't. If consciousness is a process in the brain, then God is
not conscious, because God doesn't have a brain.
If God is conscious, then not only is his consciousness not made of
matter, energy, space and time, neither is ours.
If you think for a moment that God's Eternum resident consciousness
can be replicated in fact in a mechanical process, you have another
think coming to you hopefully.
But worst case if your consciousness IS a mechanical process in a
brain, then you might as well lump it in with eating and taking a crap
in the morning, and calling God conscious would be insulting, as God
certainly neither eats nor takes a crap every morning.
But if both God and Soul have consciousnesses that reside in some
upper band of existence beyond space and time, doesn't that make God and
Soul Co Eternal?
And if both God and Soul are Co Eternal, doesn't Occam's Razor tell
us to consider the possibility that God and Soul are ONE thing, not two,
namely that the Soul is in fact God in carnation.
The Proof says that if God and Soul are two different objects, then
they can never be certain of each other.
Oh, you didn't see that one coming did you?
What then of the physical universe?
Could something that didn't have any matter, energy, space or time
in its nature, MAKE matter, energy, space and time?
Probably not. But certainly it could make spaceless, timeless
DREAMS of matter, energy space and time.
Dreams or imaginations of space and time don't take up any space or
time.
Thus we need to at least consider the possibility that being a Soul
in the apparent material world is one of God's pet dreams.
But when God wake's up from his dream, poof, he is God again, and
the dream vanishes to wherever dreams vanish to when you wake up.
That's the simplest theory, isn't it?
There is one complexity though, which is that God is dreaming
many different dreams at the same time each one a 'different' Soul
and it's story.
But in these many different dreams, dream Souls can talk to other
dream Souls and share their dreams while asleep.
Thus as Soul, God does not dream alone.
While dreaming, Souls think they communicate amongst each other via
the dream stuff called matter, energy, space and time, they pick up the
phone and yak, but in truth dream stuff has no agency except to be
dreamed.
The true channels of agency and communication between Souls during
dream time is intra God, between God and himself above the illusions of
space and time.
If YOU could have two dreams at the same time, could both of your
dreaming selves talk to each other inside your dreams while still
dreaming?
You pick up a dream phone and dial a dream number, and your other
dreaming self hears his dream phone ring, and he picks it up and you talk
about what a beautiful dream day it is outside, and he answers Oh yes it
is just so wonderful outside, and you both love the sound of the other's
voice.
Is there any causal agency going out over the dream phone wires
between the two of you as you talk, or is it all an illusion of cause
mastered by your waking self conniving and contriving to have a believable
dream between the two of you?
Poor Occam, rolling over in his dream grave he is.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Wed Oct 21 14:30:04 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore659.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFWJ9msURT1lqxE3HERAghFAJ4ocDXbDZaQ4pm91tdnmrm2X8imUgCfQ90N
o0W6EITHFsy6xJZZ7qTzN3s=
=/8+Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
GOD AND CONSCIOUSNESS
Now many of us like to believe that God doesn't exist, because we
know damn well that if God did exist he belongs in jail for child abuse.
But perhaps God The Father is not the proper concept of God, maybe
God does exist anyhow, he just doesn't give a damn about your sorry ass,
and he is a lot bigger than any of us have ever imagined.
Or perhaps we ARE God in carnation and we still don't give a damn
about our sorry ass. In either case, expecting anything of God out
there is bypassing the power of God right here where we are.
I have said my prayers to God always come back to me marked as spam
from his spam trap, with a little note that says 'Do it yourself.'
So we have to ask ourselves a couple of questions about God.
The first question is:
If God exists, is he made out of matter, energy, space and time?
Well probably not, God is supposed to have CREATED matter, energy,
space and time, and so he couldn't be made of it himself.
Thus God exists outside of matter, energy, space and time, which
immediately makes him meta physical rather than physical, living up in
the Realm of Eternum, and certainly not to be found by looking deeper
into the physical universe of parts and pieces, tick tocks and
machinery.
The second question is:
If God exists, is he conscious?
Well if he is conscious, his consciousness certainly isn't made of
matter, energy, space and time either.
The third question is:
If God's consciousness is not made of matter, energy, space and
time, why would we ever think that OUR consciousness is made of matter,
energy, space and time?
Consciousness is consciousness, either it is a mechanical process
or it isn't. If consciousness is a process in the brain, then God is
not conscious, because God doesn't have a brain.
If God is conscious, then not only is his consciousness not made of
matter, energy, space and time, neither is ours.
If you think for a moment that God's Eternum resident consciousness
can be replicated in fact in a mechanical process, you have another
think coming to you hopefully.
But worst case if your consciousness IS a mechanical process in a
brain, then you might as well lump it in with eating and taking a crap
in the morning, and calling God conscious would be insulting, as God
certainly neither eats nor takes a crap every morning.
But if both God and Soul have consciousnesses that reside in some
upper band of existence beyond space and time, doesn't that make God and
Soul Co Eternal?
And if both God and Soul are Co Eternal, doesn't Occam's Razor tell
us to consider the possibility that God and Soul are ONE thing, not two,
namely that the Soul is in fact God in carnation.
The Proof says that if God and Soul are two different objects, then
they can never be certain of each other.
Oh, you didn't see that one coming did you?
What then of the physical universe?
Could something that didn't have any matter, energy, space or time
in its nature, MAKE matter, energy, space and time?
Probably not. But certainly it could make spaceless, timeless
DREAMS of matter, energy space and time.
Dreams or imaginations of space and time don't take up any space or
time.
Thus we need to at least consider the possibility that being a Soul
in the apparent material world is one of God's pet dreams.
But when God wake's up from his dream, poof, he is God again, and
the dream vanishes to wherever dreams vanish to when you wake up.
That's the simplest theory, isn't it?
There is one complexity though, which is that God is dreaming
many different dreams at the same time each one a 'different' Soul
and it's story.
But in these many different dreams, dream Souls can talk to other
dream Souls and share their dreams while asleep.
Thus as Soul, God does not dream alone.
While dreaming, Souls think they communicate amongst each other via
the dream stuff called matter, energy, space and time, they pick up the
phone and yak, but in truth dream stuff has no agency except to be
dreamed.
The true channels of agency and communication between Souls during
dream time is intra God, between God and himself above the illusions of
space and time.
If YOU could have two dreams at the same time, could both of your
dreaming selves talk to each other inside your dreams while still
dreaming?
You pick up a dream phone and dial a dream number, and your other
dreaming self hears his dream phone ring, and he picks it up and you talk
about what a beautiful dream day it is outside, and he answers Oh yes it
is just so wonderful outside, and you both love the sound of the other's
voice.
Is there any causal agency going out over the dream phone wires
between the two of you as you talk, or is it all an illusion of cause
mastered by your waking self conniving and contriving to have a believable
dream between the two of you?
Poor Occam, rolling over in his dream grave he is.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Wed Oct 21 14:30:04 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore659.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFWJ9msURT1lqxE3HERAghFAJ4ocDXbDZaQ4pm91tdnmrm2X8imUgCfQ90N
o0W6EITHFsy6xJZZ7qTzN3s=
=/8+Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)